Honble MISRA, J.–The petitioner herein has assailed the order dated 30.6.98 passed by the Department of Labour, Government of India (as contained in Annexure-3 to this writ petition) by which his application for initiation of reference of dispute under Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 has been rejected.

(2). The facts of the case in so far as it is relevant for deciding the controversy raised herein are that the petitioner Babu Lal had set up a sweets shop in front of the State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur across the road from where he was supplying drinking water in pitchers after charging some money from the State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur. An idea suddenly appears to have struck him that he could be treated as a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 so as to claim regularisation of his services with the respondents-Bank and hence he filed a suit before the Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate-Gangapurcity for regularisation of his services and also filed an application for injunction restraining the respondent from preventing the petitioner to supply water to the Bank which according to the petitioner would amount to termination of his services as per the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947.

(3). The petitioners application for injunction was rejected by the Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate on the ground that the petitioner is not a workman in the eye of law. The petitioner thereafter withdrew the suit from the Court of Civil Judge which did not deter him from his pursuit as he then filed an application for initiation of a reference of dispute under the Industrial Dispute Act of 1947 which was rejected by the Department of Labour Government of India by order dated 30.6.98 as contained in Annexure-3 stating therein that the workman has not put in 240 days of service in 12 consecutive months.

(4). The petitioner feeling aggrieved with the aforesaid order of rejection of his reference got an opportunity to avail a technical argument in his favour to the effect that the Department of Labour-Government of India could not have recorded an opinion on merit that the petitioner has not put in 240 days of service so as to disentitle him from being treated as a workman. Prima facie, this argument although is perfectively justified due to which a show cause notice was issued to the respondents, a revelation was made before this Court by the respondents advocate that the petitioner in fact is running the business of a sweet shop in front of the respondent-Bank and was supplying drinking water from there who filed a suit and also an application for injunction which has been noted hereinbefore but had failed to disclose that fact either in this writ petition or before the competent authorities while filing an application for initiation of reference.

(5). The counsel for the petitioner Mr. Rajesh Moodia however confronted the situation by urging that the petitioner was not duty bound to disclose that fact before the competent authorities who had to pass an appropriate order for initiating a reference on the dispute existing and even though he had filed a suit for getting him declared as a workman which he had withdrawn, the matter was fit to be adjudicated on merit and the reference could not have been refused merely because an application for injunction was rejected.

(6). But the argument advanced by the petitioners advocate is clearly be set with legal flaws as he seems to have missed that in the writ petition a categorical declaration is legally required to be made to the effect that the petitioner has no other alternative remedy and that he has exhausted all other remedies available to him. In view of this legal and procedural requirement, the petitioner was duty bound to disclose it in his writ petition that he had already moved the Court of the Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate for getting him declared as a workman and even though the suit was not finally decided recording a finding that he was not workm

Click Here to Read the rest of this document