1976 JTR(SC) 158
1976 AIR(SC) 1474 ; 1976 49 FJR 51 ; 1976 32 FLR 343 ; 1976 LIC 1028 ; 1976 1 LLN 494 ; 1976 3 SCC 433 ; 1976 SCC(L&S) 450 ; 1976 3 SCR 1010 ; 1976 UJ 535 ; 1976 1 UJ 535 ; 1976 KHC 844
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.N. RAY, C.J.I. AND JASWANT SINGH, J.
Prem Kakar, Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana and another, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 119 of 1975
Decided on 5-4-1976.*
Advocates appeared
Mr. N. N. Goswami and Mr. Arvind Miocha, Advocates for Appellant; Mr. G. B. Pai, Sr. Advocate, (M/s. S. R. Agarwal & Parveen Kumar, Advocates of M/s. Khaitan & Co., Advocates with him), for Respondent No. 2.
Act
Referred
:CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.226
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT : S.10
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 6 - Industrial Disputes Act - Sections 10 (1), 12 , 12(4) and 12 (5) - Wages - Writ of mandamus - Quasi-judicial - Government have not found your case fit for adjudication to a Labour Court because you were working as an Electrical Foreman in this concern, which was a supervisory job and your wages were more than Rs. 500/- per month. Therefore, your case is not covered by the definition - appellant contended that the question whether the appellant was a workman was a disputed question of fact and law which could be decided only by an appropriate Labour Court - appellant also submitted that if dispute in question raises questions of law the appropriate Government should not give a final decision on the question - Appellant s contention is that the issue whether the appellant is a workman or not could only be decided by the Labour Court and, therefore, reference should have been made – Held, Government refused to refer dispute for adjudication under Section 12 (5) of Act was that the employees had adopted go-slow tactics during relevant year. The facts were that the company had nevertheless voluntarily paid three months bonus for year and report of the Conciliation Officer was in favour of the employees - Court held Government acted on irrelevant considerations and issued a writ of mandamus - appellant was not a workman within the definition of workman in Act, and, therefore, it was not a fit case for reference for adjudication - Appeal dismissed
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 6 - Industrial Disputes Act - Sections 10 (1), 12 , 12(4) and 12 (5) - Wages - Writ of mandamus - Quasi-judicial - Government have not found your case fit for adjudication to a Labour Court because you were working as an Electrical Foreman in this concern, which was a supervisory job and your wages were more than Rs. 500/- per month. Therefore, your case is not covered by the definition - appellant contended that the question whether the appellant was a workman was a disputed question of fact and law which could be decided only by an appropriate Labour Court - appellant also submitted that if dispute in question raises questions of law the appropriate Government should not give a final decision on the question - Appellant s contention is that the issue whether the appellant is a workman or not could only be decided by the Labour Court and, therefore, reference should have been made – Held, Government refused to refer dispute for adjudication under Section 12 (5) of Act was that the employees had adopted go-slow tactics during relevant year. The facts were that the company had nevertheless voluntarily paid three months bonus for year and report of the Conciliation Officer was in favour of the employees - Court held Government acted on irrelevant considerations and issued a writ of mandamus - appellant was not a workman within the definition of workman in Act, and, therefore, it was not a fit case for reference for adjudication - Appeal dismissed
Arvind Minocha, G.B.PAI, N.N.GOSWAMY, PARVIN KUMAR, S.R.AGARWAL
JUDGMENT
RAY, C. J.:— This appeal by special leave turns on the question whether the State can be asked by a writ of mandamus to make a reference under Section 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
2. The appellant was employed by the respondent company Hindustan Dowidat Tools Ltd. The services of the appellant were terminated on 4 September, 1972. The Conciliation Officer started conciliation proceedings under Section 12 of the Act. No settlement could be arrived at. The Conciliation Officer sent a report to the State Government under Section 12(4) of the Act. The State Government by letter dated 7 June, 1973 informed the appellant that the Government had considered the appellant s case not fit for reference to the Labour Court for adjudication.
3. The Government in the letter stated as follows:
"The Government have not found your case fit for adjudication to a Labour Court because you were working as an Electrical Foreman in this concern, which was a supervisory job and your wages were more than Rs. 500/- per month. Therefore, your case is not covered by the definition of the terms "work-man" given in the Industrial Disputes Act."
4. The appellant under Article 6 of the Constitution applied for a writ of mandamus directing the State to make a reference. The High Court dismissed the application.
5. The appellant contended that the question whether the appellant was a workman was a disputed question of fact and law which could be decided only by an appropriate Labour Court. The appellant also submitted that if the dispute in question raises questions of law the appropriate Government should not give a final decision on the question. In short, the appellant s contention is that the issue whether the appellant is a workman or not could only be decided by the Labour Court and, therefore, reference should have been made.
6. Under Section 10 of the Act where the appropriate Government is of opinion that any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended, it may at any time refer the dispute, inter alia, to a National Tribunal for adjudication.
7. Section 1 of the Act deals with duties of Conciliation Officers. If the Conciliation Officer cannot arrive at a settlement of the dispute he sends a report to the appropriate Government. Under Section 12 (5) of the Act 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, it may make such reference. Where the appropriate Government does not make such a reference it shall record and communicate to the parties concerned its reasons therefor.
8. This Court in State of Madras v. C. P. Sarathy, 1953 SCR 334 and State of Bombay v. K. P.Krishnan, (1961) 1 SCR 227 held that the order of the Government acting under Section 10 (1) read with Section 12 (5) of the Act is an administrative order and not a judicial or a quasi-judicial one.
9. In Bombay Union of Journalists v. the State of Bombay, (1964) 6 SCR 22 this Court said that in entertaining an application for a writ of mandamus against an order made by the appropriate Government under Section 10 (1) read with Section 12 (5) of the Act the Court does not sit in appeal over the order and is not entitled to consider the propriety or the satisfactory character of the reasons given by the Government. If it appears that the reasons given show that the appropriate Government took into account any consideration irrelevant or foreign, then the Court may in a given case consider the case on a writ of mandamus.
10. In K. P. Krishnan s case = (AIR 1960 SC 1223) (supra) the issues in dispute related to a claim of classification for specified employees and additional bonus and the sole ground on which the Government refused to refer the dispute for adjudication under Section 12 (5) of the Act was that the employees had adopted go-slow tactics during the relevant year. The facts were that the company had nevertheless voluntarily paid three months bonus for that year and the report of the Conciliation Officer was in favour of the employees. This Court held that the Government acted on irrelevant considerations and issued a writ of mandamus.
11. In the present case, the fact is that the Govt. found that the appellant was not a workman within the definition of workman in the Act, and, therefore, it was not a fit case for reference for adjudication.
12. The High Court rightly rejected the application. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. Parties will pay and bear their own costs.
Appeal dismissed.
For Citation : AIR 1976 SC 1474