1. Dispute over employment status of mine workers — claim of direct employment versus contractor engagement — request for reference under Section 10, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1991 Supreme(SC) 109
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.N.Singh : P.B.Sawant
Dhanbad Colliery Karamcharisangh
Versus
Union Of India
Case No. : 0 of 1991
Date of Decision : 2/20/91
The government cannot adjudicate the merits of a dispute, such as the existence of an employer-employee relationship, when deciding whether to refer the matter to the Industrial Court under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Headnote:(A) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 10 - Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 - Reference of dispute to Industrial Court - Government's power to refer - Government cannot adjudicate the merits of the dispute while deciding whether to refer it for adjudication - Such action is not permissible under law. (Para 3)
Facts of the case:
Workmen claimed they were direct employees of a company and not engaged by a contractor without a license. They sought a reference of the dispute to the Industrial Court. The government refused the reference on the grounds that the workmen failed to establish they were engaged in prohibited categories of work and that no employer-employee relationship existed between the company and the workmen.
Findings of Court:
The government, instead of referring the dispute for adjudication to the appropriate Industrial Court, decided the dispute itself, which is not permissible under the law. The order of the High Court and the government is set aside, and the government is directed to make the reference within three months.
Issues: Whether the government can decide the merits of a dispute regarding the employer-employee relationship instead of referring the matter to the Industrial Court under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Ratio Decidendi: The government is not permitted to adjudicate the merits of a dispute itself when the legal requirement is to refer the dispute for adjudication to the appropriate Industrial Court under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Union claimed direct employment by management; Central Government contended workers were engaged by a contractor and no employer-employee relationship existed with the management. (Para 2 )
3. The Central Government impermissibly decided the merits of the dispute itself instead of referring it for adjudication to the appropriate Industrial Court. (Para 3 )
4. The government cannot adjudicate a dispute itself when the statutory requirement is to refer the matter for adjudication under Section 10, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. (Para 3 )
5. Appeal allowed — orders of High Court and Central Government set aside — direction to refer the dispute to the Industrial Court within three months. (Para 3 )
6. Can the Central Government decide the merits of a dispute when requested to refer it under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?
No, the Central Government is not permitted to decide the dispute itself; it must refer the dispute for adjudication to the appropriate Industrial Court. (Para 3 )
7. What is the legal status of a government order that refuses a reference by adjudicating the merits of an industrial dispute?
Such an order is not permissible under the law as the government's role is to refer the dispute for adjudication rather than deciding the dispute itself. (Para 3 )
(1) LEAVE granted.
(2) THE appellant Union raised a dispute that the workmen employed in the mines run and maintained by M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., Lodhna Area, Dhanbad were engaged by a contractor without obtaining a licence and in fact the workmen were under the direct employment of the management of M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. They claimed relief for a declaration to that effect. The workmen approached the central Gov- ernment for referring the dispute to Industrial court under S. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Central government by its order dated 5/05/1989 refused to refer the dispute on the ground that Union had failed to establish that the disputed workmen were engaged in prohibited categories of work under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and further that they were engaged by con- tractor and not by the management of the respondent Company. The government further held that there appeared to be no employer- employee relationship between the management of the respondent- company and the workmen involved in the dispute. The appellant chal- lenged the governments order before the High court by means of writ petition but the same was dismissed in limine. Hence this appeal.
(3) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the parties and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that this appeal must succeed. The Central government instead of referring the dispute for adjudication to the appropriate Industrial court under Sec- tion 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, it itself decided the dispute which is not permissible under the law. We, accordingly, allow the appeal, set aside the order of the High court and of the central Govern- ment and direct the central government to refer the dispute for adjudication to the appropriate Industrial court under S. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. We further direct the central Govern- ment to make the reference within three months.
(4) THERE will be no order as to costs.
