IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 25TH JANUARY 2008 / 5TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 16299 of 2003(M) --------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: ------------------- 1. SOUTHERN RAILWAY MEN'S UNION, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, PRAKASH BHAVAN, RAILWAY STATION ROAD, TRIPUNITHURA 2. T.T.IYPE, THACHETHU HOUSE, THURITHIKKARA P.O., MULANTHURUTHY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT BY ADV. SMT.VILASINI NAYAK SRI.C.S.AJITH PRAKASH RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LABOUR, NEW DELHI 2. ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL COCHIN, OLIMUGAL, KAKKANAD 3. SENIOR DIVISIONAL PERSONAL OFFICER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, TRIVANDRUM DIVISION, TRIVANDRUM BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SADANANDA PRABHU,SR.SC.RAILWAYS SRI.B.N.SHIV SHANKAR, ADDL.CGSC SRI.C.B.SREEKUMAR, ADDL.CGSC SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS, SC,RAILWAYS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.16299/2003 ORDER ON IA. NO.1199/2003 IN WP(C) NO.16299/2003 DISMISSED 25.01.2008 SD/- T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS EXT.P1:- COPY OF THE AWARD DIRECTING RELINSTATEMENT DT. 31.5.94. EXT.P2;- COPY OF THE ORDER GRANTING TEMPORARY STATUS. EXT.P3:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DT. 8.5.96. EXT.P4:- COPY OF THE DISPUTE RAISED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT. 31.3.2000. EXT.P5:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.L-41012/73/2001-IR(B-1) DT. 11.12.01. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE tss T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ========================== WP(C).No.16299 of 2003-M. ========================== Dated this the 25th day of January, 2008. J U D G M E N T This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P5 order passed by the Government of India whereby the Government of India after considering the Conciliation Report had decided not to refer the dispute for adjudication, finding that the dispute is not one fit for said adjudication. Reasons have also been stated in the above order. 2. It is well settled that while considering the application for reference, the same cannot be rejected on the basis of a finding on the merit of a claim. The question is only whether the matter has to be referred to the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Cour for adjudication. Going by Section 10(1), the only question that can be considered by Government is whether an industrial dispute exists or is apprehended. In the decision of the Apex Court reported in Ram Avtar Sharma v. State of Haryana (AIR 1985 SC 915), it has been held that the Government cannot delve into the merits of the dispute and take upon WP(C).No.16299 of 2003-M. 2 itself the determination of the lis. The order passed as per Ext.P5 is one which is passed in excess of the powers conferred under the relevant provisions of the Statute in question. Accordingly, Ext.P5 is quashed. The first respondent will again consider the issue under reference and take action, in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment by the petitioner. The Writ Petition is allowed as above. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. kvs/-