C.M. No. 3987 of 2010 and 1 CWP No. 16183 of 2004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M. No. 3987 of 2010 and CWP No. 16183 of 2004 Date of decision: 04.05.2010 Haryana Roadways Workers' Union, Yamuna Nagar ...... PETITIONER VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....... RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr. D.K.Nagar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. D.S.Nalwa, Addl. A.G. Haryana, for the respondents. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) C.M. No. 3987 of 2010 Prayer in the application is for fixing an early actual date of hearing in the case for final disposal. With the consent of the parties, the main case is taken up for hearing for final disposal. CWP No. 16183 of 2004 Prayer in the present writ petition is for setting aside of the order dated 16.09.2002 (Annexure P-5), vide which the reference of the dispute raised vide demand notice dated 24.03.2000 has been declined by C.M. No. 3987 of 2010 and 2 CWP No. 16183 of 2004 respondent No. 3 on the ground that the workman was posted at Yamuna Nagar and dispute in the demand in question has been raised by the Haryana Roadways Workers Union, Yamuna Nagar, as such the demand notice cannot be considered for making reference for adjudication to the Labour Court, U.T. Chandigarh for want of territorial jurisdiction. Counsel for the petitioner contends that even if the reference could not be made to the Labour Court, U.T. Chandigarh but since the dispute was raised and the territorial jurisdiction, as per the respondent itself, would lie with the Labour Court at Yamuna Nagar, the reference should have been made to the said Court. He, therefore, contends that the impugned order dated 16.09.2002 (Annexures P-3) passed by respondent No. 3 cannot be sustained. Counsel for the respondents is unable to rebut the contention, as raised by the counsel for the petitioner. I have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. As regards the contention as raised by the counsel for the petitioner that there is no difference of opinion that there was a dispute, which was espoused by the Union on behalf of the workman-Surjan Singh as per demand notice dated 24.03.2000, if there is a dispute, a reference is required to be made to the Court of competent jurisdiction. Government of Haryana is the appropriate authority under the Industrial Disputes Act to make such a reference. Although it cannot be said that order dated 16.09.2002 would be bad as the dispute was sought to be referred to the Labour Court, U.T. Chandigarh through the demand notice, but since the appropriate authority was of the opinion that the territorial jurisdiction would C.M. No. 3987 of 2010 and 3 CWP No. 16183 of 2004 lie at Yamuna Nagar, the reference should have been made to the Court at Yamuna Nagar. Counsel for the petitioner has also prayed for the same. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed. A direction is issued to the respondents to consider the demand notice dated 24.03.2000 and make a reference to the appropriate Court having territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the same. The said exercise be completed within a period of two months' from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE May 04, 2010 pj