CWP No.213 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.213 of 2008 Date of decision: 5.8.2008. Hoshiara ...Petitioner Versus Union of India & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.K. Sharma, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. K.K. Thakur, Advocate for respondent No.4. Rajan Gupta, J. The petitioner has approached this Court for a mandamus to direct the respondents to refer the industrial dispute raised by him to the Labour Court for adjudication. According to the petitioner, he was appointed as Beldar- cum-Chowkidar on daily wages on 6th April, 1991 and was conferred the temporary status and placed in minimum pay scale of Group 'D' employee vide order dated 31st July, 1997. His services were terminated on 12th February, 2004 without complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioner thereafter, raised an industrial dispute on 1st June, 2006 vide demand notice Annexure P-3. Thereafter, matter was referred to Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Faridabad for reconciliation. However, the matter was sent to appropriate Government for suitable action thereafter. The Government CWP No.213 of 2008 2 declined to refer the dispute to the Labour Court vide order dated 26th April, 2007 on the ground that the same was covered by Central Civil Services (TS) Rules, 1965, governing the discipline in the industry concerned. The matter, therefore, could not be considered as industrial dispute. In its reply filed by respondents No.1 to 4 before this court, the same stand has been reiterated. It has also been contended that the petitioner could approach the Central Administrative Tribunal under the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 as the same was competent to adjudicate upon such disputes relating to Central Government employees. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the pleadings on record, we are of the considered view that the order (Annexure P-6) is wholly without jurisdiction and authority and the same is liable to be set-aside. The appropriate Government cannot be allowed to refuse reference of industrial dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court on such ground that the matter being governed by CCS (TS) Rules, 1965, the workman could approach the Central Administrative Tribunal. The reference can also not be refused on the ground that the workman was a civilian worker under the defence department and therefore 'not' a workman and the department was not an 'industry', as stated by the respondents in para No.4 of their reply. Objection, if any, in this regard can be raised by the respondents before the Labour Court after the matter is referred to the said court. CWP No.213 of 2008 3 During the course of argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in CWP No.15229 of 2003, decided on July 20, 2004, where the case of a similarly placed workman, who was employed under the same employer i.e. the Commandant Equine Breeding Stud, Hisar, was directed to be referred to Labour Court for adjudication. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that impugned order deserves to be quashed. The same is, therefore, hereby quashed. A direction is issued to the appropriate Government to make a reference of the Industrial Dispute raised by the petitioner for adjudication to the Labour Court of competent jurisdiction in accordance with law within three months from today. The writ petition stands allowed in the aforesaid terms. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) JUDGE August 05, 2008 'rajpal'