Case Note & Summary
This appeal by special leave arose from a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The first appellant, Bombay Union of Journalists, a registered trade union, espoused the cause of two working journalists who were retrenched by the second respondent, a private limited company, Indian National Press, Bombay. The first respondent was the State of Bombay. The dispute concerned the validity of retrenchment and the State Government's refusal to refer the industrial dispute for adjudication under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Appellants 2 and 3, a lady journalist and a sub-editor, had been appointed by the second respondent in 1955 and 1953 respectively. On 30 November 1957, each was served a notice of termination effective 1 December 1957, stating that their services were retrenched under Section 3(2) of the Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955, and that they would receive three months' salary in lieu of notice. The first appellant protested, alleging victimisation and lack of bona fides. Conciliation proceedings failed, and a failure report was submitted under Section 12(4) on 15 April 1958. The State Government, after considering the report and statements, refused to refer the dispute by letter dated 1 July 1958, giving reasons that the termination appeared to be an act of retrenchment for which the management was willing to pay legal dues, and that the management did not appear to have acted mala fide or vindictively. The appellants moved the Bombay High Court for a writ of mandamus to direct reconsideration; the single judge dismissed the petition, and the Division Bench affirmed. The Supreme Court considered whether the Government could examine merits while deciding on a reference under Section 10(1) read with Section 12(5), and whether clause (c) of Section 25F was a condition precedent for valid retrenchment. The appellants argued that the Government's reasons showed it had adjudicated the merits, which was beyond its jurisdiction, and that failure to serve notice under Section 25F(c) was mandatory and rendered retrenchment invalid, so the Government should have referred the dispute. The respondents contended that the Government had discretion and its refusal was based on relevant considerations; Section 25F(c) did not create a condition precedent. The Court held that under Section 10(1) read with Section 12(5), the appropriate Government has discretion to refer or not to refer a dispute. It may consider prima facie merits and other relevant considerations, such as whether the claim is patently frivolous, clearly belated, or likely to adversely affect employer-employee relations in the region. However, it cannot purport to finally decide questions of law or disputed facts, as those are for the Industrial Tribunal. The Court followed State of Bombay v. K.P. Krishnan. On Section 25F(c), the Court held that clause (c) is not a condition precedent like clauses (a) and (b); earlier observations in State of Bombay v. Hospital Mazdoor Sabha, District Labour Association Calcutta v. Ex-Employees of Tea Districts Labour Association, and Workmen of Subhong Tea Estate v. Outgoing Management of Subhong Tea Estate that clause (c) is mandatory were obiter dicta. Even if it were a condition precedent, a writ of mandamus would not automatically follow because the Government must still consider expediency under Section 10(1); a writ would issue only if refusal was based on irrelevant considerations, extraneous grounds, or mala fide. The Supreme Court found no such infirmity and dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's decision.
Headnote
A) Industrial Dispute - Reference by Government - Section 10(1) read with Section 12(5) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - The appropriate Government has discretion to refer or not to refer an industrial dispute for adjudication and may consider prima facie merits and other relevant considerations, but cannot finally decide questions of law or disputed facts. It may refuse reference if the claim is patently frivolous, clearly belated, or likely to adversely affect employer-employee relations in the region. Held that the Government's refusal based on reasons that termination was retrenchment and no mala fide was found was valid and not beyond jurisdiction (Paras not mentioned). B) Labour Law - Retrenchment - Section 25F(c) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Clause (c) of Section 25F is not a condition precedent for valid retrenchment, unlike clauses (a) and (b) which prescribe conditions precedent. Earlier Supreme Court observations in State of Bombay v. Hospital Mazdoor Sabha and other cases that Section 25F(c) is mandatory are obiter dicta. Held that non-compliance with Section 25F(c) did not automatically render retrenchment void, and the Government could still consider expediency of reference (Paras not mentioned). C) Constitutional Law - Writ of Mandamus - Article 226 Constitution of India - Breach of Section 25F(c) by management is serious and the Government would normally refer such dispute, but does not necessarily entitle a party to mandamus. A writ of mandamus lies only if the Government refuses reference for irrelevant considerations, extraneous grounds, or acts mala fide. Held that no such grounds were shown, so no writ was issued and appeal dismissed (Paras not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the State Government, while deciding whether to refer an industrial dispute under Section 10(1) read with Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, can consider the merits of the dispute; and whether compliance with clause (c) of Section 25F of the Act is a condition precedent for valid retrenchment.
Final Decision
Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Government's refusal to refer was valid; it may consider prima facie merits; Section 25F(c) is not a condition precedent; no malafide shown.
Law Points
- Section 10(1) read with Section 12(5) of Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947 confers discretion on appropriate government to refer or not to refer an industrial dispute
- Government may consider prima facie merits and relevant considerations but cannot finally decide questions of law or disputed facts
- Government may refuse reference if claim patently frivolous
- clearly belated
- or likely to adversely affect general relations between employer and employees in region
- Section 25F(c) is not a condition precedent for valid retrenchment
- observations that Section 25F(c) is mandatory are obiter dicta
- if Government refuses reference for irrelevant considerations
- extraneous grounds
- or mala fide
- party may seek writ of mandamus under Article 226
