JUDGMENT :

In view of outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic, case has been taken up through Video Conferencing. Concerned lawyers have no objection with regard to the proceeding, which has been held through Video Conferencing today at 10:30 a.m. onward. They have no complaint in respect to the audio and video clarity and quality.

2. The petitioner has approached this Court for quashing of the order dated 08.05.2012, passed by Under Secretary, Ministry of Labour, Government of India, whereby and whereunder, the Industrial Disputes regarding dismissal of petitioner from service has been denied to be referred for adjudication in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

3. The facts of the case in short is that petitioner was a displaced person and as such he joined his service on 06.02.2000 to the post of Khalasi, having his Employee No. 764705. The said post of Khalasi is reserved for displaced persons. Due to his severe illness, petitioner was under treatment and could not attend his duties. However, without considering aforesaid fact, respondent no. 3, by issuance of an ex-parte order no. Pers/ESH/Plaint/2002 – 1292, dated 27.06.2002, dismissed the petitioner from the service. Being aggrieved, petitioner raised an Industrial Dispute through the Labour Union i.e. Rashtriya Ispat Mazdoor Sangh and a case vide 2(18) 2011/E-1 was registered and notice was issued to the respondent no. 3 under Section 22(1)(d) and 22(2)(d) and Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act. Thereafter, conciliation proceeding was initiated but the same could not reach to bring out settlement between the parties and the same ended in failure and as such, the failure report was sent to the appropriate authority for referring the dispute for adjudication in proper forum. Thereafter, the Under Secretary, Ministry of Labour, Government of India, issued a letter dated 08.05.2012, whereby and whereunder the issue relating to limitation was decided and the dispute had been denied to be referred to appropriate forum for adjudication. Being aggrieved, petitioner has knocked door of this Court.

4. Assailing the impugned order, Mr. Sanjay Prasad, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner vociferously argues that the same is illegal and liable to be quashed and set aside and the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. Learned counsel further argues that the impugned order denying referral of case of the petitioner for adjudication in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act is illegal, disproportionate and not in accordance with law. Petitioner should not have been denied his rights to place his case. Learned counsel further argues that petitioner was not given any opportunity for placing his case and the same has been denied on the ground of limitation. Neither any enquiry was conducted nor any opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. While hearing the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside on the ground that the issue relating to limitation is to be decided by affording opportunity of hearing to parties and by way of judicial exercise of power. The issue relating to limitation is an issue in respect of industrial disputes to be heard and decided by the competent court of law and the same could not have been decided by the Under Secretary, Ministry of Labour, Government of India. The impugned order has been passed in a mechanical manner without application of mind. The order of dismissal from service has serious civil consequences and as such, the same could not have been decided in arbitrary manner.

5. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner places heavy reliance on the following judgments:

(I) Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. Vs. Mahesh Dahiya [(2017) 1 SCC 768];

(II) Prabhu Dayal Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. [2020 (1) JLJR 180];

6. Per contra, counter-affidavit has not been filed by respondents. Mr. Vi