IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.14396 of 2000 Date of decision:31.08.2009 Dulo Ram ...Petitioner versus Chandigarh Administration, Labour Department and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. Sunil K. Chaudhary, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for the respondents. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? ---- K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The order under challenge in the writ petition is the rejection of a claim for reference by the workman to the Labour Court for an adjudication. The demand notice brought on record the fact that the workman had joined the management in January, 1992 and that his services were illegally terminated on 30.03.1999 without applying the statutory requirements of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The management appears to have responded to the demand notice made by the workman before the Conciliation Officer and the report of the Conciliation Officer makes reference to the fact that the management offered the job with continuity of service but without back wages, but the workman was not prepared to accept the offer. The Conciliation Civil Writ Petition No.14396 of 2000 - 2 - Officer's report also shows that the management had not committed itself to any writing even as regards its offer of the job with continuity of service but without back wages and the Government has refused to the reference on the ground that the workman was not interested in joining duty. 2. In my view, the order of the Government refusing the reference was clearly bad. It has merely adverted to one portion of the whole story that he refused to accept the offer to resume duty. It was not an unconditional offer by the management that the workman refused, but it was a case where even as per the report of the Conciliation Officer, the management was not prepared to pay him the back wages. The Conciliation Officer's observation that there was nothing in writing by the management offering the job with continuity of service was also failed to be considered by the Government. There was definitely a dispute that required an adjudication and the order passed by the Government does not take into account the whole picture and has rejected the matter to refer by an improper consideration of all that was relevant for the case. 3. The impugned order of the Government passed through the Secretary, Labour, Chandigarh Administration, dated 19.05.2000, is set aside and the first respondent is directed to refer the matter for an adjudication relating to the subject whether the termination of the services of the workman on 30.03.1999 was justified or not, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Civil Writ Petition No.14396 of 2000 - 3 - 4. The impugned order, under the circumstances, is set aside and the writ petition is ordered. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 31.08.2009 sanjeev