P. SATHASIVAM, J.

Aggrieved by the order of the first respondent-Government of Tamil Nadu refusing to refer Industrial Dispute for adjudication under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Cheran Transport Employees Union has filed the above writ petition on various grounds. Since the issue involved in the writ-petition is one and the same in the other writ petitions, they are being disposed of by the following common order.

For the convenience I shall refer the case of the parties in W.P. No. 9439/1992. One Kumaresan who is employed as a conductor in the second respondent-Transport Corporation, was issued with Charge-sheet dated February 25, 1987 stating that he had committed misconduct as per Standing Order 14(d)(ab). It is further stated that the 2nd respondent without holding enquiry, by an order dated February 20, 1988 imposed punishment of suspension for three days. On behalf of the said workman, the petitioner Union took up the matter before the Conciliation Officer at Coimbatore. The conciliation ended in failure and the Conciliation Officer gave his failure report dated February 25, 1991. Finally, the first respondent Government, by the impugned order dated June 18, 1991 declined to refer the said dispute for adjudication. Though, the first respondent Government have filed a counter-affidavit in some cases wherein similar orders have been passed, no counter-affidavit has been filed by them in this writ petition. In the impugned order, the reason for rejection of the reference is stated that the punishment was imposed after getting explanation and that the dispute was raised about 2 years after the punishment.

I have heard Mr. K. Chandru, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Advocate for first respondent Government of Tamil Nadu and S. Jeyaraman, R. Viduthalai, Sanjay Mohan, M. S. Krishnan Ms. Kala Ramesh, Vivekanandamoorthy, S. Swaminathan, T. Dhanyakumar, T. Arulraj, C. Ravichandran, V. Radhakrishnan, R. P. Kapilan, R. S. Ramanathan, R. Thirugnanasambandam and Jayesh Dolia for Aiyar and Dolia and Rengantha Reddy for King and Patridge.The only point for consideration is whether the Government is justified in declining to refer the dispute for adjudication before the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

As stated earlier, the workman, namely, Kumaresan, who is employed as a conductor in the 2nd respondent Corporation, for certain omissions and commissions, was charge-sheeted and a Memo was served on him for committing misconduct as per the Standing Order. According to the petitioner Union, since the second respondent without holding any enquiry, has imposed a punishment of suspension for 3 days by order dated February 20, 1988, they have taken up the matter to the Conciliation Officer. On failure of the conciliation, the matter has been referred to the Government, first respondent herein for referring the same before the Labour Court for adjudication. Among other provisions in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, we are concerned with Section 12(4) and (5), of the Act which runs as follows :-

Duties of conciliation officers

12(4) If no such settlement is arrived at, the conciliation officer shall, as soon as practicable after the close of the investigations send to the appropriate Government a full report setting forth the steps taken by him for ascertaining the facts and circumstances relating to the dispute and for bringing about a settlement thereof, together with a full statement of such facts and circumstances, and the reasons on account of which, in his opinion, a settlement could not be arrived at.

(5) If, on a consideration of the report referred to in sub-section (4), the appropriate Government is satisfied that there is a case for reference to a Board, Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, it may make such reference. Where the appropriate Government does not make such a