IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.18116 of 2010 BIBEKA NAND THAKUR, SON OF PARMA NAND THAKUR, RESIDENT OF RADHA RANI SINHA ROAD, RODDA COLONY, ADAMPUR, BHAGALPUR, PS. ADAMPUR, TOWN AND DISTRICT BHAGALPUR. Versus 1. THE UCO BANK, THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT 10, B.T.M. SARANI, KOLKATA-700001. 2. THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER-CUM-THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY, UCO BANK, ZONAL OFFICE, S.K. TARAFDAR ROAD, ADAMPUR, BHAGALPUR. 3. THE CHIEF OFFICER-CUM- THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY, UCO BANK, ZONAL OFFICE, S.K. TARAFDAR ROAD, ADAMPUR, BHAGALPUR. 4. THE ENQUIRY OFFICER NAMELY MR. G.N. SINGH, UCO BANK, ZONAL OFFICE, S.K. TARAFDAR ROAD, ADAMPUR, BHAGALPUR. 5. THE UNIION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF LABOUR, AND EMPLOYMENT, NEW DELHI. 6. THE DESK OFFICER, MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT, GOVT. OF INDIA, NEW DELHI. 7. THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER(C) MAURYA LOK COMPLEX, A BLOCK IIND FLOOR, ROOM NO.6/16. ----------- 03. 08.11.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, UCO Bank and the counsel for the Union of India. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the competent authority of the Ministry of Labour, Government of India contained in letter dated 17.2.2010, Annexure-25, whereunder request of the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Central to refer the dispute for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal, Patna in the light of the failure of the conciliation report No.5/0/2009/ALCII dated 23.12.2009 has been refused on the ground that punishment of lowering down two stages in the time scale of pay has been imposed on the petitioner serving the UCO Bank as Head Cashier, in view of the bipartite settlement dated 19.10.1966 after following the procedure laid down for conducting disciplinary proceeding. 3. It is submitted on the behalf of the petitioner that on receipt of the failure of conciliation report dated 23.12.2009 the competent - 2 - authority of the Ministry of Labour, Government of India ought to have referred the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal, Patna for adjudication as dispute is required to be adjudicated by the Industrial Tribunal and not by the Ministry of Labour, Government of India. In support of aforesaid submission reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Awtar Sharma and others Versus State of Haryana and another, reported in (1985) 3 SCR 686. 4. Having perused the impugned order dated 17.2.2010, Annexure-25, I am satisfied that the order refusing to make reference suffers from the vice of arbitrariness as thereunder the Ministry of Labour by refusing to make the reference has adjudicated the dispute raised, which it is not authorized to adjudicate in view of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. Accordingly, order dated 17.2.2010, Annexure-25 is set aside with direction to the competent authority of the Ministry of Labour, Government of India to make reference in the light of the failure of the conciliation report dated 23.12.2009, referred to in the impugned order dated 17.2.2010, Annexure-25, as early as possible, in any case within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before the competent authority. Petitioner is at liberty to raise other submissions as well before the Industrial Tribunal, Patna, which is raised in the writ petition. 5. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. Rajesh/ (V.N. Sinha, J.)