IN THE HIGH COURT OF ,IUDICATURE AT ' BILASPUR (Cg) WRIT PETITION No ...7...8.’..€....../04 / PETIT : Ashok Kumar Yadav IONER S/o Shri Budnu Ram Yadav j; Age 34 years, Vill. & Post. Pawni (City Para) Tah. Bilaigarh, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS ‘ RESPONDENTS 1. Union of India Through :- DESK OFFICER Ministry of Labour New Delhi 2. Bilaspur, Raipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank Dayalband / Bilaspur (C.G.) Thlough : The Chairman / , ’/“ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/ 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ,r’ ‘ 1. PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER x:- A &((9?T Qyfw Vb %%“ y . As shown in the case title. T)‘ ‘L k ‘32 “awsao w§ARTICULAR'S OF RESPONDENTS - dunk k" \J‘v $96 gt‘Gg As shown in the case title. Qw‘ & Qy e‘ygb ,n‘“ '3‘ I @LAF K \J' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION No. 786 of 2004 PETITIONER : Ashok Kumar Yadav. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : Union of India & another. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotij,_J. Present: Shri S.P.Kale, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri R.Pradhai1, Advocate for the respondent No. 1. ORDER ORAL) (Passed on 15 day of September, 2009) 1. Despite service ofnotice, none appears on behalfofrespondent No. 2. 2. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 13m September, 2002 (Annexure P/l) passed by the Govemment of India. Ministry of Labour, declining reference on failure of conciliation, to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (for short ‘CGIT’), on the ground that the complainant has not completed 240 days of service in a calendar year and as such, he is not entitled to grant of benefit under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 3. Shri Kale farther submits that no finding of such nature can be recorded without examining the documents. After hearing ieamed counsel for the petitioner and perusing the records, it appears that the grievance of the petitioner cannot ‘bei’examined without proper adjudication of the matter. Since the petition involves disputed question of facts, therefore, it was desirable to refer the dispute to the CGIT. The Desk Oificer, Government of India, Ministry of Labour, cannot decide the dispute which is a subject matter of the CGIT and as such, declining reference to the CGIT does not seem to be proper. " “‘TI k The Supreme Conn, in Sharad Kuma‘r v. Govt. ofNCT ofDelhi & Ofhersl, while taking into consideration that determination of the question requires examination of factual matters for which materials including oral evidence will have to be considered, directed the respondent No. 1 therein, to refer the dispute raised by the appellant including the question whether the appellant is a workman under the Act, to the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court for adjudication. In View of the above, the order dated 13m September, 2002 (Annexure P/l) is quashed and the respondent No. 1 is directed to refer the matter to the CGIT for proper adjudication; as early as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt a copy ofthis order. Accordingly, the petition is allowed to the above extent. No order asto costs. \ Sd/— Salish K. Agnjhotri 2:7. Judge m ”(2002) 4 soc 490