Rekha Palli DECISION
Rekha Palli, J.
1. The present petition preferred by the workman under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks quashing of the order dated 17.12.2011 passed by the respondent under Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act (ID Act). Vide the impugned order, the respondent, the appropriate Government acting through the Regional Labour Commissioner has declined to refer the dispute raised by the petitioner for adjudication before the Industrial Tribunal.
2. The brief factual matrix necessary for adjudication of the dispute may be first noted. The petitioner joined the services of the State Bank of India on 10.04.1981 as a Clerk and was removed from service vide order dated 24.11.2004 pursuant to ex parte disciplinary proceedings held against him. As the petitioner had rendered more than 20 years of service, he applied to the bank for release of pension on the ground that he having submitted his resignation on 10.03.2004, he was entitled to pension. Upon receiving no response thereto, the petitioner through the All India Bank Staff Association raised a claim before the Assistant Labour Commissioner.
3. In the conciliation proceeding, the bank took the plea that the petitioner was not entitled to pension under the applicable Pension Rules. As the bank opposed the petitioner's claim, the Assistant Labour Commissioner acting as the Conciliation Officer submitted a failure report, whereafter, the respondent passed the impugned order declining to refer the petitioner's claim for adjudication.
4. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is wholly without jurisdiction as the Appropriate Government under Section 12(5) of the I.D. Act does not have the jurisdiction to adjudicate qua the rival stands taken by the parties. He submits that the Conciliation Officer as also the Appropriate Government exercise a very limited jurisdiction and all that they are required to consider is as to whether a dispute exists or not between the parties. It is only when a dispute is wholly frivolous, can the government decline to make a reference. In the present case, once it was evident that the bank was refusing to entertain the petitioner's claim for pension, it was incumbent upon the respondent to refer the dispute to Industrial Tribunal. The respondent could not, under Section 12(5) of the I.D. Act, assume an adjudicatory function. He, therefore, prays that the impugned order be set aside and the respondent be directed to forthwith make a reference of the petitioner's claim to the Industrial Tribunal.
6. On the other hand, Mr. Gogna, learned counsel for the respondent seeks to defend the impugned order by urging that before making a reference under the Industrial Disputes Act, it is incumbent upon the Appropriate Government to consider whether a prima facie case was made out for adjudication. He submits that while exercising power under Section 12(5) of the I.D. Act, the Appropriate Government is not required to make a reference regarding every dispute and is expected to first consider whether a case for reference is made out or not. Unless the Government is satisfied that the claim is required to be referred for adjudication, it need not make any reference. However, it is required to furnish reasons for it's refusal to refer the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. He, therefore, prays that the petition be dismissed.
7. Before dealing with the rival submissions of the parties, it would be appropriate to refer to para........