C.W.P.No.5912 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.5912 of 2007 Date of Decision:- 24.02.2009 Bijender Rohilla ....Petitioner(s) vs. The State of Haryana and others ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.N.K.Malhotra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.D.S.Nalwa, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Mr.P.K.Mutneja, Advocate for respondent No.3. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral) In the present writ petition, challenge is to the award dated 30.8.2005 (Annexure P-2) vide which the Appropriate Government i.e. State of Haryana has declined to refer the dispute to the Labour Court on the ground that the workman was working in the Quality control and was drawing Rs.5000/- per month and was performing the supervisory nature work which does not come under the purview of Section 2(S) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the order passed by the Appropriate Government is not in accordance with law as it amounts to deciding the dispute itself which is not within the purview of the Authority under Sections 10 and 12 of the Act. He contends that in the case of a C.W.P.No.5912 of 2007 -2- similar employee who was working on the same post with the same respondent-Management and performing the same duties and responsibilities, the dispute stands referred by the Government of Haryana vide its order dated 8.8.2005, (Annexure P-3). He further contends that in this regard a plea has been raised by the petitioner-workman in para 14 of the writ petition which has not been specifically denied by respondent No.3 in their reply thereto. Therefore, keeping the same into account, the Government ought to have referred the matter of the petitioner-workman to the Labour Court for adjudication. Counsel for the respondent on the other hand submits that the reference has been rightly declined by the Appropriate Government while exercising its powers under the I.D.Act. The demand notice itself shows that the workman was working in a supervisory capacity and therefore, he would not be covered by the definition of the “workman” under the Act. Reliance has been made on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of The Secretary Indian Tea Association vs. Ajit Kumar Barat and others, JT 2000 (2) SC 70 to contend that the Government can take into consideration the question as to whether the demand notice has been preferred by a workman or not and in case it finds otherwise, the said reference can be rejected. I have gone through the pleadings of the parties and have also gone through the impugned order as well as the earlier reference in the case of a similarly situated co-worker. Further, the pleadings do indicate that the earlier reference which had been made in the case of Varinder Hooda who was working on the post of Inspector, just like the present workman, and performing the same duties and functions, which fact has not been disputed C.W.P.No.5912 of 2007 -3- by respondent No.3 in their written statement. Although counsel for the respondents has tried to state that the said assertion has been denied by them in their reply but since there is no specific denial in this respect, the assertion of the petitioner is taken as having been accepted by the respondents. Counsel for the respondents has further submitted that the Appropriate Government has not taken into consideration the reply to the demand notice filed by the workman and, therefore, their reply should also have been considered by the respondents as they have categorically stated that the workman is not their employee but rather could have worked with the Contractor. In view of these facts, it would be just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order dated 30.8.2005 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Government of Haryana, Labour Department, Chandigarh. It is ordered accordingly. The Appropriate Government shall reconsider the matter in the light of the demand notice, the earlier reference (Annexure P-3)and the reply to the demand notice filed by the Management and thereafter pass appropriate orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. February 24, 2009 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE Whether referred to Reporters ________ Yes/No