The appropriate Government must form an opinion on the existence of a referable industrial dispute and the 'workman' status of the complainant before referring a dispute to adjudication.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner in this writ petition, M/s. H. T. Media Ltd, claims to be aggrieved by an Order, dated 30th June, 2015, issued by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, New Delhi District, the size of the powers conferred, upon him, by Sections 10(1)(c) and 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the ID Act”), referring the following dispute, to the Labour Court, for adjudication:

“Whether services of Sh. Purshottam Singh, s/o late Sh. Ram Baksh Singh have been terminated by the management illegally and/or unjustifiably, and if so, to what relief he is entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect.”

2. Purushotham Singh has been impleaded, by the petitioner, as Respondent No.3, in these proceedings.

3. The impugned Order, dated 30th June, 2015, states that it has been issued after consideration of the report, submitted by the Conciliation Officer, under Section 12(4) of the ID Act, on perusal whereof the Deputy Labour Commissioner expresses satisfaction that an industrial dispute exists, between Respondent No.3 and the petitioner, requiring adjudication by the Labour Court.

4. The proceedings before the Conciliation Officer, in turn, emanated from a complaint, dated 2nd June, 2015, submitted by Respondent No.3, against the petitioner and its Executive Director-Operations & Human Relations. Respondent No.3 stated, in the said complaint, that he had been working with the petitioner for 32 years, with sincerity and devotion, and had an unblemished service record, though he was “getting a very meagre salary of Rs. 35,124/-”, which was not commensurate with the work being done, by him, for the petitioner. The dispute, as pointed out in the said complaint, arose out of the recommendations of the Majithia Wage Board, constituted by the Government of India in 2007, for newspaper employees. The said Wage Board, it was pointed out, had recommended grant of 30% interim relief to newspaper employees, but this direction was not implemented by the petitioner. The complaint alleged that, in order to avoid implementing the recommendation/Award of the Wage Board, the petitioner was resorting to repeated changes of nomenclature, and was earlier known as Hindustan Times. The complaint further pointed out that, on 31st December, 2012, the Wage Board submitted its recommendations to the Government of India, but, before the said recommendations could be notified, proprietors of newspapers, to which it applied, filed a writ petition, before the Supreme Court of India which, however, directed notification of the recommendations of the Wage Board, which, consequently, took place on 11th November, 2011. Finally, vide judgment dated 7th February, 2014, the Supreme Court dismissed the aforesaid writ petition, filed by newspaper establishments, challenging the award of the Wage Board. It may be noted that the said writ petition, numbered W.P. (C) 246/2011, was titled “A. B. P. Pvt Ltd v. U.O.I.”. Despite the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court, the complaint alleged, wages, in terms thereof, were not disbursed, by the petitioner, to its employees, resulting in Respondent No.3 filing Contempt Petition (C) No.102/2015 before the Supreme Court. Allegedly chagrined thereby, the petitioner started victimising Respondent No. 3, to a point where, on 21st March, 2015, Respondent No. 3 was prevented, by the security guard, from entering the office of the petitioner, who directed Respondent No. 3, on the intervention of the Police, to report, on the next day, at the Gurgaon office of the petitioner. On his reporting at the said Gurgaon office, on 24th March, 2015, Respondent No. 3 alleged that he was informed that, from the next day, he would be working at the said office. Despite his acceding to the said directive, and reporting, thereafter, on a daily basis, at the Gurgaon office of the petitioner, Respondent No.3 alleged that, without any justification whatsoever, the petitioner terminated his services on 29th Ma