( 1 )

( 2 ) PETITIONER, Hospital Employee s Union by this writ petition, seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing the orders dated 3. 11. 1995 and 23. 10. 1997 i. e. Annexures P-1 and P-2, by which the prayer of the petitioner for reference of the dispute relating to workman Smt. Ratna Desai to the Industrial tribunal was rejected, firstly by the Secretary, labour on 3. 11. 1995 and thereafter the appeal/review preferred TO was rejected by the Secretary, labour, Government of NCT of Delhi, on 23. 10. 1997.

( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner, mr. Sanjoy Ghosh, has very eloquently put forward the case of the workman. He submits that workman, who was herself a Leprosy Patient after being cured, had been working since 1978 with respondent no. 2 at the Leprosy Centre as a dresser. She had successfully completed a nine months Leprosy physiotherapy Technical Course at the Christian medical College Hospital, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, in 1973. A certificate to this effect has been issued by Hindu Kusht Nivaran Sangh i. e. Indian Leprosy association and is signed by Head of the Department of Orthopedics and Leprosy Reconstructive surgery, Christian Medical College Hospital, vellore.

( 4 ) SHE claimed that based on her experience and the qualification obtained by doing the technician course, as aforesaid, she was entitled to be appointed and work as Physiotherapist in the leprosy Clinic. Learned counsel also submits that the workman and petitioner s Union had been representing for considerable period of time for her being appointed as a Physiotherapist at the Leprosy centre. It is stated that in a meeting attended by the Lt. Governor, Chief Secretary, Delhi administration, it was discussed that since the physiotherapist has been absent for two years, his services should be terminated and new incumbent should be appointed. Further, the Lt. Governor was informed that work of Physiotherapist could be taken up by Smt. Ratna, who was trained and she should be asked to start Physiotherapy Centre. Based on the aforesaid, workman has been claiming for being appointed as a Physiotherapist, but to no avail.

( 5 ) THE petitioner Union took up the matter on behalf of the workman. Respondents have declined to refer the dispute on the ground that "to be a Leprosy patient is not a qualification for the post of Physiotherapist and this post also does not come under any rehabilitation program. " the appeal/review was also rejected by Secretary (Labour) vide order dated 23. 10. 1997, noting the earlier ground for rejection and observing that there was no ground for review of the order already passed and he dismissed the appeal/review.

( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has relied on the following decisions :-

(I) Bombay Union of Journalists and others vs. State of Bombay and another reported at AIR 1964 Supreme Court 1617. The Supreme Court noting the decision in State of Bombay vs. K. P. Krishnan air (1961) 1 SCR 227 observed as under:-

". . . . WHEN the appropriate Government considers the question as to whether any industrial dispute should be REFERRED TO for adjudication or not, it may consider, prima facie the merits of the dispute and take into account other relevant considerations which would help it, to decide whether making a reference would be expedient or not. It is true that if the dispute in question raises questions of law, the appropriate Government should not purport to reach a final decision on the said questions of law, because that would normally lie within the jurisdiction of the Industrial tribunal. Similarly, on disputed questions of fact, the appropriate Government cannot purport to reach final conclusions, for that again would be the province of the Industrial tribunal. But it would not be possible to accept the plea that the appropriate Government is precluded from considering even prima facie the merits of the dispute when it decides the question as to whether its power to make a reference should be exercised u