CWP NO. 11566 of 2003 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 11566 of 2003 Date of decision: 06.05.2010 Perma Nand son of Sh. Net Ram ...... PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Haryana and others ....... RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Ms. Sushma Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. D.S.Nalwa, Addl. A.G. Haryana, for respondents No. 1 to 3. None for respondents No. 4 and 5. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) Prayer in the present writ petition is for setting aside of the order dated 01.10.2002 (Annexure P-3) passed by respondent No. 3 on a demand notice dated 04.03.2002 served upon the respondents by the petitioner. Notice of the writ petition was issued to the respondents. Respondents No. 4 and 5 were duly served but they preferred not to appear before this Court. They were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 06.05.2004. CWP NO. 11566 of 2003 2 Counsel for the petitioner contends that as per the demand notice served upon respondents No. 4 and 5, the petitioner was appointed as a Temporary Operator on 12.07.1999 and worked with the Management up to 18.12.2001 when suddenly his services were terminated by the Management. The petitioner sent a demand notice to the Management on 27.12.2001. The matter was taken up by the Labour Officer-cum- Conciliation Officer, Circle-2, Gurgaon. The settlement was arrived at between the petitioner and the respondents-Management and the petitioner was taken back in service with continuity thereof. The petitioner, in accordance with the settlement, joined his duty on 07.02.2002. The Management again terminated the services of the workman w.e.f. 01.03.2002 without complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. Faced with this situation, the petitioner preferred a demand notice dated 04.03.2002. The conciliation proceedings were initiated but the same failed and the Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer, Circle-2, Gurgaon, vide his report dated 15.07.2002, forwarded the failure report under Section 12/4 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Annexure P-2). Respondent No. 3 proceeded to take a decision on the said report and the demand notice of the petitioner vide order dated 01.10.2002 (Annexure P-3) rejecting the demand notice of the petitioner on the ground that the services of the petitioner were terminated in accordance with the appointment letter on completion of the prescribed period. She contends that the pleadings, as have been referred to in the demand notice, have not been taken into consideration by the Government. Further dispute apparently is there between the petitioner and the Management as to the nature and the post, on which the petitioner was appointed. As per the appointment letter dated 09.07.1999, the petitioner was appointed as a Temporary Operator CWP NO. 11566 of 2003 3 whereas subsequently, he was appointed as a Trainee. She, therefore, contends that respondent No. 3 should not have exercised the powers of the Court to decide the dispute between the parties but should have referred the matter to the appropriate Court for adjudication as per law. She, on this basis, contends that the present writ petition deserves to be allowed while quashing the impugned order dated 01.10.2002 (Annexure P-3). On the other hand, counsel for respondents No. 1 to 3 contends that the appropriate authority under the Industrial Disputes Act has exercised its powers in accordance with law and, therefore, no interference is called for by this Court in the impugned order. I have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. The facts, as have been narrated above, are not in dispute. The contention as raised by the counsel for the petitioner carries weight as the jurisdiction, power and authority to adjudicate upon the dispute between the parties is with the Labour Court. The demand notice itself suggests that as a matter of fact, there was a dispute between the parties with regard to the nature of appointment and the terms thereof. That being so, the function, which is to be exercised by the Labour Court, cannot be arrogated by the competent authority itself as that power is not vested with the competent authority as per the Industrial Disputes Act. Therefore, the impugned order dated 01.10.2002 (Annexure P-3) cannot be sustained. In view of the above, the present writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 01.10.2002 (Annexure P-3) passed by respondent No. 3 is hereby quashed. CWP NO. 11566 of 2003 4 A direction is issued to the respondents to reconsider the matter afresh and take an appropriate decision in accordance with law within a period of two months' from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE May 06, 2010 pj