IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2009 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 33235 of 2008(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- V.K.MOHAMMED SHAJI VELIYIL HOUSE, C/O.MADURAMITTATH HOUSE NEAR S.N.D.P.HALL, CHUTTUPADU KARA, EDAPPALLY P.O., KOCHI-24. BY ADV. SRI.PAULSON C.VARGHESE SRI.E.A.BIJUMON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT LABOUR & REHABILITATION (A) DEPT TRIVANDRUM. 2. ERNAKULAM CHAMBER OF COMMERCE SHANMUGHAM ROAD, COCHIN -11 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR FOR R2 SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR FOR R2 SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI FOR R2 SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS FOR R2 SRI.ANIL D. NAIR FOR R2 GOVT. PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: 33235/2008. -------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF CHARGE MEMO DT. 14-5-2004. EXT.P2 COMPLAINT DT. 27-4-2005. EXT.P3 ORDER DT. 12-11-2007. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 33235 of 2008 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 24th March, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a workman under the 2nd respondent. He was dismissed from service in respect of which the petitioner raised a dispute by filing a complaint before the District Labour Officer by Ext. P2. The conciliation ended in failure. A failure report was forwarded to the 1st respondent. However, by Ext. P3, the 1st respondent refused to refer the dispute for adjudication. Ext. P3 is under challenge before me. 2. According to the petitioner, by Ext. P3, the Government has decided the matter on merits as to the justifiability of the dismissal of the petitioner, which is not a matter within the jurisdiction of the Government under the Industrial Disputes Act. According to the petitioner, the Government cannot decide the matter on merits. 3. I have heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for the 1st respondent and the learned standing counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent. 4. In Ext. P3, the reasons stated for refusing to refer the dispute for adjudication are as follows: W.P.C. No. 33235/08 -: 2 :- From the same, it is clear that the Government has, on their own, without taking any evidence in the matter, come to the conclusion that the charges of misconduct against the petitioner had been proved. By no stretch of imagination such a jurisdiction can be held to be vested with the Government. Under the Industrial Disputes Act, the Government has no jurisdiction to decide a dispute on merits, that too, without any evidence on record in support of the same. Therefore, the Government cannot, on the ground that the allegations against the petitioner have been proved, refuse to refer the dispute for adjudication. Accordingly, Ext. P3 is quashed. The 1st respondent is directed to refer the dispute for adjudication as provided under the Industrial Disputes Act, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/