Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, United Mine Workers Union, challenged the communication dated 3rd September 2019 issued by the Union of India (Ministry of Labour and Employment), the appropriate Government, declining to make a reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The dispute pertained to the retrenchment of workmen by the respondent employer, Rajaram Bandekar (Sirigao) Mines Pvt. Ltd. The Union contended that the Government misconstrued its power by delving into the merits of the dispute and considering irrelevant factors, such as the fact that 28 out of 56 workmen had accepted retrenchment compensation. The Union argued that the provisions of Chapter V-B of the Act are a matter of public policy and that concepts like estoppel by acquiescence do not apply. The employer argued that the Government had only undertaken a prima facie examination, which is permissible. The court held that the appropriate Government, while exercising its power under Section 10, can only make a prima facie assessment and cannot adjudicate the dispute. The Government's order was based on irrelevant considerations and a misconstruction of its power. The court quashed the impugned communication and directed the Government to make a reference of the dispute to the appropriate Tribunal for adjudication.
Headnote
A) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 10 - Reference of Disputes - Scope of Government's Power - The appropriate Government, while deciding whether to make a reference under Section 10, can only undertake a prima facie examination of the dispute and cannot delve into the merits or adjudicate upon the dispute. The Government exceeded its power by considering the merits and relying on the fact that 28 out of 56 workmen had accepted retrenchment compensation, which is an irrelevant consideration. (Paras 4-8) B) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Chapter V-B - Retrenchment - Estoppel by Acquiescence - The provisions of Chapter V-B are conceived as a matter of public policy, and therefore, concepts like estoppel by acquiescence will hardly apply. The acceptance of retrenchment compensation by some workmen does not bar the Union from seeking adjudication before the Tribunal. (Paras 5, 8) C) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 10 - Judicial Review - The High Court can interfere with the Government's order declining reference if the Government has misconstrued the scope of its power, considered irrelevant factors, or acted on a patently erroneous basis. (Paras 7-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appropriate Government, while exercising its power under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, can decline to make a reference by delving into the merits of the dispute and by taking into account irrelevant considerations such as acceptance of retrenchment compensation by some workmen.
Final Decision
The impugned communication dated 3rd September 2019 is quashed and set aside. The appropriate Government is directed to make a reference of the dispute to the appropriate Tribunal for adjudication within four weeks from the date of the order.
Law Points
- Scope of power under Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
- Prima facie examination
- Estoppel by acquiescence inapplicable to Chapter V-B
- Irrelevant considerations
