CW 2287/06 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No.2287/2006 Kalu Ram Versus Union of India & Ors. Date of Order ::: 16/01/09 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Chiranjilal Saini, for petitioner-workman Mr. Sumit Khandelwal for Mr. Kunal Rawat, for respondents Instant petition has been filed by Workman raising grievance that appropriate Government has arbitrarily declined to make Reference in exercise of powers U/S 12(5) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (“the Act”) vide order dt.20/09/04 (Ann.9). Petitioner-workman was terminated from his services earlier while working as Pump Driver w.e.f. 13/03/94. Vide notification dt. 17/12/1998, a dispute was referred by appropriate Government to Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal (“Tribunal”) for adjudication – in course whereof, learned Tribunal allowed his claim (CGIT/B-43/98) vide Award dt.02/02/02 (Ann.1) but observed that respondents will be free to dispense with his service if not required after due compliance of S.25-F of the Act. Against Award (Ann.1) petitioner filed CWP-1687/01, which was dismissed as not pressed. CW 2287/06 //2// However, respondents passed fresh order dt.27/09/2000 terminating his service, against which petitioner filed CWP-1832/01 which too was dismissed by this Court vide order dt.06/08/01 (Ann.R.1) on the premise that against fresh cause of action having arisen out termination order dt.27/09/2000, he has efficacious alternative remedy available under the Act, 1947. However, respondents later on passed an order dt.19/12/02 reinstating the petitioner in service in terms of Award dt.02/02/02 (Ann.1), and thereafter passed fresh order dt. 27/12/02 (Ann.2) terminating his services, as alleged after due compliance of S.25-F of the Act – against which petitioner workman submitted an application before Conciliation Officer raising dispute that even order of termination dt.27/12/02 (Ann.2) has not been passed in compliance of S.25-F of the Act and that apart the order is also in violation of Ss.25-G & H of the Act - in respect whereof, a specific averment was made by petitioner in paras 4 & 5 of his application dt.03/09/03 (Ann.4). But, when the settlement could not have been arrived at between the parties, failure report was sent to the appropriate Government, which declined to CW 2287/06 //3// make Reference vide order dt.20/09/04 (Ann.9) on the premise that once services were terminated of petitioner after due compliance of S.25-F of the Act in terms of Award dt.02/02/2000 (Ann.1), no further reference is required for adjudication. Counsel for petitioner submits that termination order dt.27/12/02 (Ann.2) apart from being violative of S.25-F, it was also in violation of Sections 25-G & H of the Act and to that effect, specific facts were narrated by petitioner in his application (Ann.4); hence his grievance could have been adjudicated only upon making Reference, otherwise his rights protected under the Act, 1947 against fresh cause of action stands defeated inasmuch as contrarily he has been put to remediless in view of the order (Ann.9) of respondents declining to make reference. Government Counsel while supporting the order impugned (Ann.9) submits that once services of petitioner stood terminated vide order dt.27/12/02 (Ann.2) in true compliance of Award dt.02/02/2000 (Ann.1) no further Reference was required for adjudication against fresh order of termination and appropriate Government has not committed any error in declining to make CW 2287/06 //4// Reference vide order impugned (Ann.9). Having considered rival contentions of both the parties and with their assistance, pondered over material on record, this Court finds that passing an order dt.27/12/02 (Ann.2) terminating services of petitioner certainly gives fresh action of action and if it was in violation of Ss.25-F, 25-G & 25-H of the Act, as alleged by workman in his application dt. 03/09/03 (Ann.4), certainly it could have been examined only at the stage of adjudication before the Tribunal and no opinion could have been expressed by appropriate Government with regard to merits of dispute raised by workman. Consequently, writ petition succeeds and is here allowed. Order dt.20/09/04 (Ann.9) is quashed & set aside. Respondent No.1 (appropriate government) is directed to make a Reference for adjudication of dispute raised by petitioner against order of his termination dt.27/12/2002 within three months of receipt of certified copy of this order. No costs. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p.4/2287CW06-16JnID.doc