S.S Sudhalkar, J.:— This order will dispose of Civil Writ Petitions No. 6208, 6723 and 11381 of 1989 as the facts and question of law involved in these petitions are the same.
2. These writ petitions have been filed by the workmen against the orders of the Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Haryana, Labour and Employment Department vide which it was ordered that the Government has not found it appropriate to refer the dispute for adjudication because the criminal cases are pending against the petitioners.
3. Counsel for the petitioner has relied on the case of Anil Kumar v. State of Haryana etc. (L.P.A No. 294, 295 of 1994). It has been held by a Division Bench of this court therein that the pendency of the criminal case cannot be a bar for the State Government to refer the dispute raised by the appellants, for adjudication.
4. Counsel for respondent No. 2 relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of J. Jaishankar v. The Government of India reported in Judgments Today 1996 (7) Supreme Court 483. In that case the workmen was dismissed from service for conviction for the offence under section 509 of the Indian Penal Code. The Supreme Court held in that case that the order of the Division Bench modifying dismissal in discharge with gratuity payment is due to concession by respondent and does not warrant interference.
5. The principles in the case of J. Jaishankar (supra) will not be applicable to the facts of the present case. In the present case, the Government has declined to make the reference only on the ground that criminal case is pending against the petitioners. The present case is, therefore, different from the case of J. Jaishankar (supra). The Government has delved into the jurisdiction of the Labour Court by passing the impugned order. The petitioners were not convicted and, therefore, there was no justification on the part of the Government to decline to make the reference only because a criminal case was pending against them. In view of the above reasons. I find that the impugned orders cannot be upheld.
6. In the result, these petitions are allowed. The impugned orders are set aside and respondent No. 1 is directed to take necessary steps in accordance with law after taking into consideration the principles laid down in the case of Anil Kumar v. State of Haryana etc. (supra). Respondent No. 1 is directed to take decision within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this court from this court or production of a certified copy of this court by the petitioner, whichever is earlier.
7. Petition allowed.