Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
D.A. DESAI, V. BALAKRISHNA ERADI AND V. KHALID, JJ.
The M.P. Irrigation Karamchari Sangh, Appellant
Versus
State of M.P. and another, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 8454 (NL) of 1983, D/- 27-2-1985.
While conceding a very limited jurisdiction to the State Government to examine patent frivolousness of the demands, it is to be understood as a rule, that adjudication of demands by workmen should be left to the Tribunal to decide. AIR 1964 SC 1617 discussed.
Where the Government takes a plea that the dearness allowance claimed by the workmen would cost additional financial burden on it, it cannot take an unilateral decision on the two questions, this virtually amounts to final adjudication of the demand itself.
The demand can never be characterised as either perverse or frivolous. The conclusion so arrived at robs the employees of an opportunity to place evidence before the Tribunal and to substantiate the reasonableness of the demand. [Para 5
Similarly if a question arises that a particular demand of money was included in the consolidated pay the question refers on the conditions of service of the employees.
What exactly are the conditions of service of the employees and in what manner their conditions of service could be improved are matters which are the special preserve of the appropriate Tribunals to be decided in adjudicatory processes and are not ones to be decided by the Government on a prima facie examination of the demand. This demand again can never be said to be either perverse or frivolous. [Para 6
Government should be very slow to attempt an examination of the demand with a view to decline reference and Courts will always be vigilant whenever the Government attempts to usurp the powers of the Tribunal for adjudication of valid disputes. To allow the Government to do so would be to render section 10 and section 12 (5) of the Industrial Disputes Act nugatory. 1971 JLJ 787 reversed. [Para 7
(1) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-S. 2 (j)-Chambal Project-is an industry.
(Para 2)
(2) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947--Ss. 10 r/w S. 12 (5)-jurisdiction of State Government-is very limited--demand neither perverse nor frivoluous-State Government cannot refuse reference by unilaterally adjudicating the demand finally.
Section 10 permits appropriate Government to determine whether dispute 'exists or is apprehended' and then refer it for adjudication on merits. The demarcated functions are (1) reference (2) adjudication. When a reference is rejected on the specious plea that the Government cannot bear the additional burden, it constitutes adjudication and thereby usurpation of the power of a quasi-judicial Tribunal by an administrative authority namely the Appropriate Government. The reasons given by the State Government to decline reference are beyond the powers of the Government under the relevant sections of the Industrial Disputes Act. What the State Government has done in this Case is not a prima facie examination of the merits of the question involved. To say that granting of dearness allowance equal to that of the employees of the Central Government would cost additional financial burden on the Government is to make a unilateral decision without necessary evidence and without giving an opportunity to the workmen to rebut this conclusion. This virtually amounts to a final adjudication of the demand itself. The demand can never be characterised as either preverse or frivolous. The conclusion so arrived at robs the employees of an opportunity to place evidence before the Tribunal and to substantiate the reasonableness of the demand. AIR 1964 SC 1617 explained.
(Para 5)
Judgment
KHALID, J. :- This is an appeal, by special leave, against the Judgment dated 8th August, 1980, by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Civil Misc. Petn. No. 127 of 1972.
2. The appellant is a trade union registered under the Trade Unions Act. It represents employees in the Chambal Hydel Irrigation Scheme under the Department of Chambal Project of Government of Madhya Pradesh in Gwalior Division. The union raised three demands and served notices of these demands on the Deputy Chief Engineer, Major Project, Chambal, Bhopal. The demands were : (I1) Chambal allowance; (2) Dearness allowance equal to that of the Central Government employees; and (3) Wages for the period of strike lasting 20 days in the year 1966. Copies of these notices were sent to the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Indore and the Secretary, Government of Madhya Pradesh. The Deputy Chief Engineer did not respond to the demands. Thereupon. the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Gwalior, at the instance of the union tried for a settlement, but did not succeed. He sent a report under S. 12(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The State Government, the first respondent in the appeal. refused to refer the matter to the concerned Tribunal by its order dated 15-3-1969. The appellant took the matter before the. High Court by filing Miscellaneous Petition No. 29/69 for a mandamus to the State Government to. refer the dispute for adjudication. The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the order of the State Government dated 15th March, 1969, and directed it to consider the question whether a reference was necessary or not. When the matter went back to the Government, the Government took the stand that the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act were not applicable to the workmen in the Chambal Hydel Irrigation Scheme since the Scheme was not an Industry and hence again refused to refer the dispute to the Tribunal. The appellant pursued the matter further by filing Miscellaneous Petition No. 45 of 1970 before the High Court. The High Court allowed the petition and directed the Government to take suitable action under S. 12(5) of the Act. The Government challenged this decision before this Court by filing S. L.P. No. 933 of 1972, without success. The matter, therefore, went back to the Government again. By its order dated I3-1-1972, the State Government referred only one question to the Tribunal and that related to the wages for the strike period but, declined to refer the other two questions. The reason given for this was : (1) that the Government was not in a position to bear the additional. burden: and (2) that grant of the special, allowance claimed would invite similar demands by other employees which would. affect the entire administration. Miscellaneous Petition No. 127 of 1972 was, therefore, filed for a direction to the State to refer the other two demands also. In the meanwhile, this Court as per its decision dated July 20, 1978, had confirmed the decision of the High Court that Chambal Project was an Industry within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act. After this decision was rendered by this Court, the Government reviewed the matter and passed an order on 3-5-1979 giving additional reasons for, refusing to refer the dispute for adjudication. The reasons stated were as under
"(1) Thai the State Government was not in a position to pay dearness allowance equal to that of Central Government employees. In the present situation the State Government, would not pay dearness allowance equal to that of Central Government employees to any particular department. The question of such payment to the petitioners, therefore, does, not arise.
(2) The work charged employees were already given a consolidated pay. Therefore, there was no justification for paying such employees the Chambal allowance. The rules regulating the service conditions of the workcharged employees of the Chambal division do not provide for payment of Chambal allowance to them."
3. Be
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
