JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar, J.
1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was heard by me on 3rd of January, 2002 and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties. I dismissed the writ petition for reasons to be recorded later on. The reasons for the dismiasal of the aforesaid writ petition are as under.
2. The facts which are not in dispute are as follows. That petitioner's father Ram Nath, who was an employee of Central P.W.D.. Kanpur and was posted as Waterman, died while in service ; that in view of the circumstances after the death of petitioner's father, petitioner was appointed as a muster role employee on compassionate ground ; that while the petitioner was working as muster role employee, the petitioner's mother, namely, widow of deceased Ram Nath. sought an employment under dying-in-hamess rules and she was appointed under dying-in-harness rules with the employer Central P.W.D., Central Region. Kanpur as peon. As a consequence thereof, the petitioner, who was appointed on the compassionate ground, in the circumstances petitioner's services were terminated by the "Assistant Engineer vide his order dated 24.3.1996. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner Sheo Shanker raised a dispute which is registered as I.D. Case No. 155 of 1989 before the Labour Court, U. P., Kanpur, but the same was dismissed as no reference was made. It is on the another application that the matter was referred by the State Government under Section 4K of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act to the respondent-Labour Court Vth, Kanpur. The aforesaid facts are not in dispute that on the pleadings of the parties, a preliminary objection was raised by the employer as to whether the Labour Court Vth, Kanpur, has jurisdiction to give answer to the reference. In view of the fact that the petitioner alleges to be an employee of the Central P.W.D., which is a department of the Central Government and, therefore, in the case of the petitioner even assuming, though not admitting that the dispute was in existence, the appropriate Government should be the Central Government and not the State Government. The aforesaid preliminary objection found favour with the Labour Court, which has relied upon Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947, which reads as under :
"2A. Dismissal etc., of an individual workman to be deemed to be an industrial dispute.--Where any employer discharges, dismisses retrenches or otherwise terminates the services of an individual workman any dispute or difference between that workman and his employer connected with or arising out of such discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination shall be deemed to be an industrial dispute notwithstanding that no other workman nor any union of workmen is a party to the dispute."
3. The Labour Court relied upon the aforesaid definition, in my opinion, rightly arrived at the conclusion that the respondent-Labour Court Vth, Kanpur. does not have jurisdiction as the State Government has no jurisdiction to refer the dispute under Section 4K, as has been done in the present case. The reference was answered against the workman on the ground of the aforesaid findings recorded on the preliminary objection without entering into the merits of the case.
4. It is this order, which is being challenged by the petitioner in the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the Labour Court has erred, the nature of appointment of the petitioner, which was on compassionate ground and he relied upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in Ravi Karan Singh v. State of U. P. and Ors., 1999 (2) AWC 976 ; 1999 (35) ALR 735, wherein it has been held that the appointment under the dying-in-harness rules is a regular appointment and, therefore, petitioner's termination cannot be done except after holding an enquiry upon the charges against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner goes on to submit that this having not been done, the order of the Labour Court Vth, Kanpur is erroneous and suffers from the manifest error of law. Suffice it to say that from the facts stated above, it is clear that the ratio of the decision relied upon by the petitioner is not applicable to the facts of the present case. The petitioner, who was appointed immediately after the death of his father on compassionate ground, ceased to continue when his mother has been given appointment under dying-in-harness rules as peon. In view of the above, it cannot be said that the petitioner's appointment was under dying-in-harness rules and this was also not a pleading before the Labour Court. It is also clear that under dying-in-harness rules, only one of the family member is entitled for appointment.
5. In any view of the matter, since the Labour Court has found that the appropriate Government in the case of employees of the Central Government, as the petitioner claims to be the reference by the State Government, is bad in law. To meet this finding of the Labour Court, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision in Sapan Kumar Pandit v. U. P. State Electricity Board and Ors., 2001 (3) AWC 2342 (SC) ; 2001 AIR SCW 2685, passed in Civil Appeal No. 471 of 2001 (arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 2648 of 2000), decided on 24.7.2001 by the Apex Court, wherein the Apex Court has ruled that once the State Government refers the dispute under Section 4K of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, it is not within the domain of the Labour Court to say that he will not enter in the dispute as the reference was made after undue delay. Needless to say that the aforesaid decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is in different context and is not relevant to the present case.
6. In view of what has been stated above, this writ petition has no merits and is accordingly dismissed. The interim order, if any, stands vacated. There will, however, be no order as to costs.