Judgment

DESAI, J. : - In this group of writ petitions, the only point of law canvassed is whether the appropriate Government was justified in declining to make a reference of. an industrial dispute arising out of the termination of service of each of the petitioners for adjudication to Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court under Sec. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Writ Petitions Nos. 16226-29/84 : Four petitioners were the workmen employed by the second respondent Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Production Ltd. (employer for short). The employer on April 11, 1983 issued chargesheet in identical. terms to all the four petitioners calling upon them to show cause within 48 hours of the receipt of the chargesheet as to why suitable disciplinary action should not be taken against each of them. The charge-sheet referred to an incident that occurred on 11th April, 1983 at 8.15 A.M. between two groups of workers presumably owing loyalty to rival unions. The misconduct alleged against each petitioner was the one set out in Standing Order 20(XIV) and 20(XXV) of the Certified Standing Orders of the employer. Briefly stated, the charges were that the petitioners were guilty of fighting or riotous or disorderly behaviour as also manhandling, beating etc other workmen of the Company which acts were subversive of the discipline expected of the workmen. of the Company. It is alleged that disciplinary enquiry followed and the enquiry officer submitted his report holding each of the petitioners, guilty of the misconduct imputed against him. The Assistant Vice-President of the employer Company, after having gone through the report submitted by the enquiry officer and after perusal or the record of proceedings of enquiry and the connected documents concurred with the findings recorded and reported by the enquiry officer holding the petitioners guilty of charges. After taking- into consideration various relevant circumstances includng the past record of the workmen, each of the petitioners was dismissed from the employment of the employer. It may be mentioned that during the pendency of the enquiry, all the petitioners had been put under suspension and while dismissing the petitioners, the period of suspension was treated as absence without leave. The petitioners raised an industrial dispute as per notice dated May 12, 1984 calling upon the employer to reinstate them with back wages and treat them in service without a break. Copies of the notice were also served upon the authorities in the Labour Department of, the Haryana Government. The Labour, cum-Conciliation Officer held conciliation proceedings and submitted a failure report on June 30, 1984. The second respondent, the State of Haryana, after taking into consideration the report of the Conciliation Officer, by its order dated September 1, 1984 declined to make a reference on the ground that the Government does not consider the case to be fit for reference for adjudication to the Tribunal as it has been learnt that the services of the petitioners were terminated only after charges against them were proved in a domestic enquiry. The present writ petition is filed questioning the correctness and validity of this order.

Writ Petition No. 16418/84 Petitioner S. K Sharma was, at the relevant time, employed as Electrical Fitter in the Diesel Shed at Tuglakabad. He was Assistant Secretary of the Uttar Railway Karamchari Union Diesel Shed Branch. He was also a member of the Canteen Committee. On August 2, 1981 the petitioner went to the Canteen, according to him, in his capacity as the member of the Canteen Committee, to enquire about the working of the Canteen. One Shri Gurbachan Singh, a Foreman, marked the petitioner absent from duty and made an entry indicating that the petitioner had absented himself from duty and gave a direction that the petitioner should not be allowed to join duty without his permission. On the next day, i.e. August 3, 1981, when the petitioner reported for duty, token was not