1. Termination of services — Application for reference under Section 10, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Rejection of first application — Second representation for reference. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1995 Supreme(SC) 1315
1996(1) Supreme 211
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy and B.L. Hansaria, JJ.
Sultan Singh -Appellant
versus
State of Haryana & Anr. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 9719 of 1995
Decided on 12.12.1995
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : R.C. Kaushik, Adv.
For the Respondents : I.S. Goyal and Indu Malhotra, Advocates.
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Though no hearing is to be given to employer while State makes reference on second application of employee under Section 10 of I.D. Act, in the facts of this case no reference is ordered by the Govt.
Though no hearing is to be given to employer while State makes reference on second application of employee under Section 10 of I.D. Act, in the facts of this case no reference is ordered by the Govt.
Subject
Industrial Disputes - Reference of Disputes
Act Referred
Headnote
(i) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Section 10(1)-Workmen terminated from service-Demand for reinstatement-Rejected-Applied for reference under Section 10 to State Government-Rejected-Again applied-Minister directed reference-Whether state should give hearing to the employer before making a reference on second application, since on an earlier occasion it was rejected ?-High Court answered in affirmative-Whether correct? (No). (Para 5)
Held : The the High Court was wholly wrong in its conclusion that before making reference on second application, it was incumbent upon the State Government to give notice to the employer and to give an opportunity to the employer and record reasons for making reference. The previous decision of that Court relied on in the case at hand was wrongly decided. (Para 5)
(ii) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 -Section 10-First application for reference rejected on ground that appellant had settled matter with the employer-Second Application-Minister directing to make a reference-But in communication by labour Dept. no reference-Whether, as a fact, reference has been ordered by the Govt. ? (No) (Para 6)-Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the State must hear the employer before making a reference on a second application after a previous rejection. (Para 1 )
3. Order to make a reference is administrative, not quasi-judicial; no lis is involved, thus no requirement to hear the employer or record reasons for making a reference. (Para 4 , 5 )
4. The government's decision to make a reference under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act is an administrative act requiring no prior hearing of the employer. (Para 4 , 5 )
5. Appeal disposed of without relief as no actual reference was made by the Government. (Para 6 , 7 )
6. Is the State Government required to hear the employer before making a reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act?
No. The order to make a reference is an administrative order, not a quasi-judicial one. Since no lis is involved, there is no need to issue notice to or hear the employer before making or refusing a reference. (Para 4 )
7. Must the Government record reasons when making a reference under the Industrial Disputes Act?
No. Section 12(5) of the Act only requires the appropriate Government to record reasons when it refuses to make a reference, not when it decides to make one. (Para 4 )
8. Does the requirement for a hearing change if the Government is considering a second application for reference after a previous rejection?
No. Even on a second occasion, the decision to make a reference remains an administrative order; therefore, it is not incumbent upon the State Government to give notice to or hear the employer. (Para 5 )
ORDER
Two questions arise in this appeal, namely, (1) whether the State should hear the respondent/employer before making a reference on a second representation under Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the Act ) since it was rejected on an earlier occasion; and (2) 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.
2. The facts are not in dispute. Way back in 1955, the appellant had joined the respondents as a workmen (Khalasi). He was promoted on September 6, 1972 as a tape-reader. He was served with a charge-sheet on June 28, 1979 and his services were terminated on August 9, 1979. On June 30, 1981, he made a demand on the respondent/employer for reinstatement which was rejected. Thereafter, he made an application for reference under Section 10 of the Act to the State Government which was rejected by order dated October 20, 1981. The appellant again made a representation on March 25, 1982 and the Minister made a note on the representation directing to make a reference. However, since no communication was received by the appellant, he wrote a letter to the Labour Commissioner, Haryana on April 26, 1984 but to no avail. He then filed the writ petition. By order dated August 6, 1984 in CWP No. 2885/84, the High Court dismissed the writ petition.
3. The first question is whether the State should give a hearing to the employer before making a reference on second application, since on an earlier occasion, it was rejected. Section 10(1) of the Act provides that where an apropriate Government is of the opinion that any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended, it may, at any time, by order in writing refer the dispute to named authorities. Section 12(5) of the Act postulates that on receipt and consideration of a report from the conciliation officer, if the Government is satisfied that there is a case for reference to the Board, Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, it may make such reference. Where the appropriate Government does not make such a reference it shall record reasons therefor and communicate to the parties concerned.
4. A conjoint reading, therefore, would yield to the conclusion that on making an application for reference, it would be open to the State Government to form an opinion whether industrial dispute exists or apprehended and then either to make a reference to the appropriate authorities or refuse to make the reference. Only on rejection thereof, the order needs to be communicate to the applicant. Nonetheless the order is only an administrative order and not a quasi-judicial order. When it rejects, it records reasons as indicated in sub-section (5) of Section 12 of the Act. The appropriate Government is entitled to go into the question whether an industrial dispute exists or is apprehended. It would be only a subjective satisfactiion on the basis of the material on record. Being an administrative order no lis is involved. Thereby there is no need to issue any notice to the employer nor to hear the employer before making a reference or refusing to make a reference. Sub-section (5) of Section 12 of the Act does not enjoin the appropriate Government to record reasons for making reference under Section 10(1). It enjoins to record reasons only when it refuses to make a reference.
5. The need for hearing is obviated, if it is considered on second occasion as even then if it makes reference, it does not cease to be an administrative order and so is not incumbent upon the State Government to record reasons therein. Therefore, it is not necessary to issue notice to the employer nor to consider his objections nor to hear him before making a reference. Accodingly, we are of the view that the High Court was wholly wrong in its conclusion that before making reference on second application, it was incumbent upon the State Government to give notice to the employer and to give an opportunit
