Judgment

RANGANATH MISRA, J.:- 154 workmen were proceeded against by the management of Lucas-T.V.S Limited, Madras, for wilful disobedience of lawful orders of superiors, acts subversive of good and proper behaviour within the establishment after authorised hours of work without permission and shouting of slogans within the establishment amounting to misconduct under Standing Orders. Later 134 of them were taken back to employment. In regard to 7 of the dismissed workmen conciliation was undertaken and upon its failure, disputes raised under S. 11 -A of the Industrial Disputes Act were asked to be referred to the Labour Court for adjudication. When Government declined to make a reference, the High Court was moved. The learned single Judge rejected the writ petition and the Division Bench upheld such rejection. This appeal by special leave is against the order of the Division Bench of the High Court.

2. This Court on July 9,1985 after hearing counsel for parties came to the conclusion :

"Now it is clear from the order made by the State Government on 11th October, 1979 which order has been reaffirmed by the State Govt. by its order dated 3rd May, 1981, that the only ground on which the State Government refused to make a reference of the dispute to the labour Court was that, in its opinion, the domestic inquiry had been conducted by the 3rd respondent (employer) according to the principles of natural justice and the punishment imposed by the 3rd respondent on the appellants was not disproportionate to the gravity of the offence committed by them. This is also borne out from paragraph 6 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the 1st respondent where it has been clearly stated that the Labour Department of the Government of Tamil Nadu opined that the management had conducted a fair and proper inquiry and also taken in consideration the gravity of the offence before dismissing the appellants and the punishment imposed on the appellants was not disproportionate having regard to the nature of the charges proved against them. This ground on which the State Government has acted in refusing to refer the dispute to the Labour Court is clearly an irrelevant round. It is now settled law as a result of the decisions of this Court in Workmen of Syndicate Bank, Madras v. Govt. of India, 11985) 1 Lab LJ 93 : AIR 1985 SC 1667 and Ramawatar Sharma v. State of Haryana, 1985 (1) Scale 713 : (AIR 1985 SC 915) that the appropriate Government cannot decline to make reference of an industrial dispute arising out of the termination of the service of a workman on the ground that the domestic inquiry resulting in the termination of the service of the workman was in the opinion of the State Government in conformity with the principles of natural justice and that the punishment imposed on the workman was not disproportionate to the offence with which he was charged ..............."

"We would therefore have ordinarily allowed the appeal and set aside the judgments of the learned single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court and directed the State Government to make a reference of the industrial dispute between the appellants and the 3rd respondent. But Dr. Chitale appearing on behalf of the 3rd respondent urged that there might be some other relevant grounds which may still be required to be considered by the State Government before deciding whether to make a reference or not and the case should therefore go back to the State Government to reconsider the question in the same manner in which this Court directed the State Government to reconsider in the Workman of Syndicate Bank case (supra). But this is a case in which more than 7 years have elapsed since the appellants were dismissed from service and they are still nowhere near a reference. We would therefore set aside the judgments passed by the learned single Judge and the Division Bench and direct the State Government to reconsider the matter without taking into account the aforesaid irrelevant