Case Note & Summary
Background: The dispute arose under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, involving a workman who challenged the State Government's refusal to refer his industrial dispute for adjudication. The appellant was a workman who had joined the respondents in 1955 and was later terminated from service. He sought a reference of his industrial dispute to the Labour Court/Tribunal under Section 10 of the Act. Facts: The appellant joined as a Khalasi in 1955, was promoted to tape-reader on September 6, 1972, was served a chargesheet on June 28, 1979, and his services were terminated on August 9, 1979. On June 30, 1981, he made a demand for reinstatement which was rejected. His first application for reference under Section 10 was rejected by the State Government by order dated October 20, 1981. He made a second representation on March 25, 1982, on which the Minister made a note directing reference, but no communication was received. He wrote to the Labour Commissioner on April 26, 1984, but no action followed. He filed a writ petition, which the High Court dismissed on August 6, 1984 in CWP No. 2885/84. Legal Issues: The Supreme Court considered two questions: (1) whether the State should hear the employer before making a reference on a second representation under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, since it was rejected earlier; and (2) whether there was an actual order of reference by the State Government entitling the appellant to adjudication. Arguments: The judgment does not record explicit party submissions, but the court examined the statutory framework of Sections 10(1) and 12(5) to determine the nature of the State's power and the factual existence of a reference. Court's Analysis: On the first issue, the court held that the appropriate Government's decision to make or refuse a reference under Section 10(1) is purely administrative, not quasi-judicial, because no lis is involved. Section 12(5) requires recording and communicating reasons only when the Government refuses to make a reference, not when it makes one. Therefore, no notice or hearing to the employer is required before making a reference, even on a second application after an earlier rejection. The High Court's contrary view was held to be wholly wrong and the previous decision relied upon was wrongly decided. On the second issue, the court found that although the Minister made a note directing reference on the second representation, the order subsequently communicated to the appellant by the Labour Department indicated that in view of the earlier decision, the Government did not consider it necessary to reconsider the decision already taken. Thus, the Government had declined to make a reference under Section 10(1), and no reference was in fact made to any Tribunal or Labour Court. Decision: The Supreme Court disposed of the appeal accordingly, without costs. It held that no hearing to employer was required for making a reference, but since no reference was actually made, the appellant was not entitled to any relief.
Headnote
A) Industrial Disputes - Reference under Section 10 and 12 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Administrative Order and No Hearing to Employer - State Government's decision to make or refuse reference is administrative, not quasi-judicial; no lis involved; no notice or hearing to employer required even on second application after earlier rejection - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Sections 10(1), 12(5) - The Supreme Court held that Section 12(5) requires recording reasons only when refusing reference, not when making it; thus High Court erred in requiring notice and hearing to employer before reference on second application, and the previous decision of that Court was wrongly decided (Paras 1-2). B) Industrial Disputes - Reference under Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Existence of Reference - Minister's note directing reference did not constitute actual reference when later communication indicated Government declined to reconsider earlier decision; no reference in fact made - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 10(1) - The court found that on second application, Minister made a note directing reference, but the communicated order stated Government did not consider it necessary to reconsider earlier decision, meaning no industrial dispute existed and no reference was made; therefore appellant not entitled to relief (Paras 1-2).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the State should hear the respondent/employer before making a reference on a second representation under Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 since it was rejected on an earlier occasion; Whether there is an order of reference by the State Government so as to entitle the appellant to have the dispute adjudicated by the tribunal.
Final Decision
Appeal disposed of accordingly; no costs. The Supreme Court held that no hearing to employer was required before making reference under Section 10(1) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, but found that no reference was actually made by State Government; hence appellant not entitled to relief.
Law Points
- Decision to make or refuse reference under Section 10(1) read with Section 12(5) of Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947 is administrative
- not quasi-judicial
- no lis involved
- no notice or hearing to employer required
- reasons required only when refusing reference
- Minister's note not actual reference if communicated order declines to reconsider
