IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 6918 of 2007. Date of Decision : April 23, 2010. Satish Chander ...... Petitioner. Versus. Labour Commissioner, Punjab, Sector-17-E, Chandigarh, and others. ..... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Ms. Jyoti Sareen, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Kavita Arora, A.A.G. Punjab, for respondents No. 1 and 2. Ms. H.K. Dhillon, Advocate, for respondent No. 3. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). The prayer in the present petition is for setting aside of the Order dated 29.09.2004 (Annexure-P-3), passed by the Labour Commissioner, Punjab, and Order dated 06.03.2007 (Annexure-P-5), passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Punjab, vide which the reference had been declined on a demand raised by the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner contends that as per the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the appropriate Government is not vested with the power to adjudicate upon the matter as to whether proper inquiry was held or the termination of the employee was in accordance with law or not. The appropriate Government, while considering the demand notice and the response given by the Management had proceeded to adjudicate upon the issue and had declined the reference acting itself to be the Court, which powers have been conferred only on the Labour Court as per the Industrial C.W.P. No. 6918 of 2007. -2- Disptues Act, 1947. On this basis, she contends that the impugned Order dated 29.09.2004 (Annexure-P-3) and Order dated 06.03.2007 (Annexure-P- 5), cannot be sustained and deserve to be set aside. Counsel for respondents have submitted that the appropriate authority had taken into consideration the response filed by the Management to the demand raised by the petitioner and on consideration of the same, had proceeded to give its opinion on the said reference, while rejecting the demand notice by not referring it to the Labour Court. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. It is true that the appropriate Government, as per the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, has powers to reject the reference, but those are very limited. The functions, as far as adjudication of the disputes are concerned, are with the Labour Court, as per the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The appropriate Government cannot exercise those powers and adjudicate upon the dispute, especially when it has itself in the said impugned order submitted that the inquiry was conducted properly and the notice was given in accordance with law. Respondent No. 1 has, therefore, exceeded its jurisdiction, while rejecting the reference by going into the merits of the case, rather than examining whether dispute existed or not. The limitation of the appropriate Government is only with regard to coming to a decision, whether there existed industrial dispute or not, but it cannot comment upon the merits of the case. The Orders impugned itself suggests that there was a dispute between the parties and, therefore, the reference was required to be made by the Government. In view of the above, the present writ petition is allowed. The impugned Order dated 29.09.2004 (Annexure-P-3) and Order dated C.W.P. No. 6918 of 2007. -3- 06.03.2007 (Annexure-P-5), are hereby set aside. A direction is issued to respondent No. 1 to reconsider the matter in the light of the above and take necessary steps in accordance with law. The said exercise be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this Order. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE April 23, 2010. sjks.