The management's compliance with the inquiry procedure alone cannot justify the State Government's refusal to refer an industrial dispute for adjudication, and the petitioner has the right to challenge the findings and punishment before the Labour Court/tribunal.

( 1 ) THE petitioner has presented this writ petition praying for quashing the order of the State Government refusing to refer the dispute between him and the r. 38. Management of K. Devappa Naik and sons about the imposition of penalty of dismissal from service against the petitioner for industrial adjudication.

( 2 ) THE petition has come up for preliminary hearing after notice to the respondents. By consent of counsel appearing for the parties, it is taken up for final hearing.

( 3 ) THE facts of the case in brief are as follows : The petitioner was a Conductor in a Motor Transport Undertaking of the third respondent. A charge sheet dated 10-6-1982 was issued to the petitioner alleging that on 8-6-1982 he allowed some passengers travelling in bus No. MEG 4462 from Manipal to mangalore to get down at Hampanakatta but did not allow two others to do so and then he had also misbehaved with a passenger. The third respondent appointed an Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charges levelled against thepetitioner. In the enquiry, the petitioner was found guilty of the charges. By order dated 20. 11. 1982 (Annexure-A), the petitioner was dismissed from service. The petitioner thereafter raised an industrial dispute before the Jurisidictional Concilia ion Officer. The Conciliation ended in failure. The failure report was submitted by the Conciliation Officer to the state Government. On consideration of the records, the State Government made the order dated 11-1-1984 and communicated the same to the petitioner. The relevant part of it reads :"subject : I. D. between the workmen and the management of M/s. K. Devappanaik and sons, Proprietor, mahabaleshwara Bus Service, Kankandy, mangalore, regarding alleged dismissal of service of Sri Srikantha rao, Conductor, with effect from 30. 11. 1982. With reference to the above subject, i am directed to state that Government consider that the demand/dispute in question has no prima facie case for reference for adjudication, for the reason that the action of the management in dismissing the service of the workmen is legal, proper and justified. Sufficient opportunity has been given and principle of natural justice has been followed. "questioning the validity of the said order, the petitioner has presented this writ petition.

( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted as follows. The fact that a departmental enquiry had been held and the prescribed procedure had been followed itself could not constitute a valid ground for the State government refusing to make the reference for, before the Labour Court/tribunal the Workman could plead and prove that the findings recorded were perverse or that the punishment imposed was actuated by malafides or by way of victimization and further that even if the finding that the Workman was guilty of the charge was based on evidence, that the punishment imposed was totally dispropornate to the gravity of the charges. Further, the State Government cannot deprive the petitioner of the opportunity of proving of those grounds before the labour Court/tribunal by refusing to make a reference.

( 5 ) SRI S. G. Sundaraswamy, learned counsel for Respondent-3, however submitted that once it is established that the State Government had applied its mind to the question as to whether the dispute merits reference and had passed an order stating that the inquiry was held in accordance with law, this Court cannot set aside such an order and direct the Government to reconsider the matter. He also submitted that the grounds, which according to the petitioner he could urge before the Labour Court or tribunal on reference were irrelevent for a decision under Section 10 and that if only a reference is made, then only the workman could urge those grounds before the Labour Court/tribunal.

( 6 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner however relied on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Syndicate Bank employees Assn. v Government of India, [1985 (1) L. L. J. P. 93]