IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act can only be considered a dispute if a specific demand has been made by the workmen, and any reference made by the appropriate government must be within the scope of the demand raised.

JUDGMENT :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

1. The instant appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the order/judgment dated 20.05.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(L) No.5602 of 2009, whereby and whereunder, the award dated 26.08.2009 passed by the Labour Court, Ranchi in Reference Case No. 03 of 2003 holding the workmen entitled to be regularized in service has been quashed and set aside by dismissing the writ petition.

2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition which requires to be enumerated, read as under:

The respondent-workmen, appellant herein, claiming himself to be the workmen of the writ-petitioner, respondent, Mecon Ltd. has raised a demand of giving him status of unskilled worker but the same having not been acceded, the matter went before the Deputy Labour Commissioner for conciliation but the conciliation having failed. Thereafter, the failure report was sent before the appropriate government basis upon which reference has been made-

“Whether not to regularize the service of Sri Dinabandhu Mahto workman of Mecon Ltd., Doranda, Ranchi by the management is justified? If not what relief he is entitled to and from which date?”

The Labour Court after receipt of the reference has called upon the writ petitioner Mecon Ltd. wherein the issue was raised regarding the question of propriety of reference by taking the plea that there is no such demand having been raised by the workmen to regularize him in service of the writ petitioner-Mecon Ltd. rather the dispute as per the demand of the workmen was only to accede him the status of unskilled worker, therefore, the same cannot be said to be a dispute in the nature of industrial dispute since there is no demand having been raised regarding the regularization of the workmen before the management.

The Labour Court, however, has proceeded and after considering the relevant documents which have been led by way of evidence and the oral submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, had passed the award in favour of the workmen holding the respondent-appellant entitled for regularization vide award dated 26.08.2009.

The writ petitioner-Management, being aggrieved with the said award, filed a writ petition being W.P.(L) No. 5602 of 2009, whereby and whereunder, the award has been reversed by quashing and setting it aside by disposing of the writ petition which is the subject matter of the instant appeal.

3. Mr. Rahul Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant-workmen has submitted that serious irregularity has been committed by the learned Single Judge while reversing the award solely on the ground that there was no demand of regularization having been raised by the workmen and hence, the same cannot be said to be a dispute under the definition of the ‘dispute’ as defined under the Industrial Disputes Act.

It has been contended that the only dispute raised by the workmen was to give him the status of the unskilled worker and to that effect a demand was raised but when the management has not acceded to such demand, the same fell for its conciliation before the Deputy Labour Commissioner but conciliation failed. The report was sent before the appropriate government basis upon which the appropriate government ought to have made a reference with respect to the grant of status of unskilled worker to the workmen by making reference to that effect, Whether not to regularize the service of Sri Dinabandhu Mahto workman of Mecon Ltd., Doranda, Ranchi by the management is justified? Therefore, the regularization since has never been an issue of demand by the workmen, hence, the same cannot be considered to be a dispute.

Taking into consideration the fact, the learned Labour Court has decided the award even then the specific ground has been agitated in this regard but the same has not been considered by answering either-way, hence, perversity of award has been shown.

Contention has been raised that the learned Single Judge has f