IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO: 178 OF 2006 (M/S) Mohan son of Kali Ram, R/o 11, Civil Lines, Roorkee, district Hardwari. ------Petitioner. Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal through its Secretary, Ministry of Labour, Civil Secretariat, Dehradun. 2. Deputy Labour Commissioner, Dehradun. 3. Assistant Labour Commissioner, Hardwar. 4. Uttri Khand Ganga Nahar, Roorkee, through its Executive Officer. -----Respondents Sri Tumul Nailwal, learned Counsel for petitioners. Standing Counsel for respondents. Dated : April 17, 2006. HON’BLE RAJESH TANDON, J. By the present writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 24.04.2002 by which the reference has been rejected by the Deputy Labour Commissioner. Briefly stated, according to the case of the petitioner he was working as a Beldar on muster roll Uttri Khand Ganga Nahar, Roorkee from 01.01.1986 to 30.07.1991. He moved an application under section 2-A of Industrial Disputes Act and the case was registered on 14.02.2001 and the delay was also condoned in filing the application under reference. However, the same has been rejected by a cryptic order to the following effect: ****Izksid] izsfir miJek;qDr x<+oky {ks= Jh eksgu iq= Jh udyhjke 46-bZ0Lh0 jskM nsgjknwu 11 flfoy ykbZu :Mdh gfj}kj i=kad @nsgjknwu&lh0ih0@’kk[kk&lfp02002 fnukad foi; lh0ih0 fookn la[;k 60 vkj@01@vf/k’kklh vfHk;Urk] mRrjh [k.M xaxk ugj :Mdh ,oa Jh eksgu ds e/;A izkFkhZ dks lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd mDr lh0ih0 fookn dh fuEukafdr dkj.k ls vfHkfu.kZ; gsrq vuqi;qDr ik;k x;k gSA dkj.k& pwWfd Jfed }kjk izfroknh i{k }kjk mB;h x;h vkifRr;ksa dk dksbZ veqfpr ,oa larks"k tud izfrokn ugha fd;k x;k gSA vr% i{kska ds e/; dksbZ vkS?kskfxd okn fo?keku u gksus ds dkj.k lh0ih0 fookn lUnHkZ ;ksX; ugha gSA ts0,e0 fc"V miJek;qDr x<+oky {ks= nsgjknwu** Counsel for the petitioner has referred the judgment of Sharad Kumar Vs Government of NCT of Delhi and others (2002)4 Supreme Court Cases 490 where it has been held as under: “We are of the view that determination of the question requires examination of factual matters for which materials including oral evidence will have to be considered in such a matter the State Government could not arrogate on to itself the power to adjudicate on the question and hold that the respondent was not a workman within the meaning of Section 25 of the Act, thereby terminating the proceedings prematurely such a matter should be decided by the Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court on the basis of the materials to be placed before it by the parties. Thus, the rejection order passed by the State Government is clearly erroneous and the order passed by the High Court maintaining the same is unsustainable.” In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances the matter is remanded to the Deputy Labour Commissioner for referring the matter in accordance with law. Subject to aforesaid observations, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. No order as to costs. (Rajesh Tandon, J) 17.04.2006. Negi.