1. Reference under Section 10, Industrial Disputes Act quashed by High Court regarding termination of workers' services. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2000 Supreme(SC) 1501
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.R.Babu : Y.K.Sabharwal
Harnam Singh
Versus
Punjab State Electricity Board
Case No. : 5401 of 1998
Date of Decision : 9/12/00
Advocates Appeared: Singh H.M.
Making a reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act is an administrative act. High Courts should not quash such references by adjudicating factual disputes, such as employment status or delay, as these must be decided by the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal.
Headnote:(A) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 10 and 25-F - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Reference to Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal - Nature of reference - Making of a reference under Section 10 is administrative in character - Scope of judicial review under Article 226 is limited - High Court cannot examine the matter as if sitting in appeal over the reference - Issues concerning the status of workers as employees and unexplained delay in invoking the Act are matters for adjudication by the competent authority during the proceedings of the reference. (Paras 3, 4 and 5)
Facts of the case:
A reference was made to the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal to determine if the termination of services of several workers without notice, chargesheet, enquiry, and compliance with Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act was legal. The High Court quashed this reference on the grounds that the government had ignored contentions regarding the employment status of the workers and an inordinate delay of over 12 years in invoking the provisions of the Act.
Findings of Court:
The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by examining original records and treating the administrative act of making a reference as if it were a judicial order. The questões of whether the workers were employed by the respondents or whether the delay in filing the claim was justified are issues that should be decided through adjudication before the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal.
Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in quashing a reference made under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act based on factual disputes regarding employment status and delay.
Ratio Decidendi: The making of a reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act is administrative in character. The High Court cannot sit in appeal over such a reference; any factual disputes raised by the parties must be adjudicated by the concerned Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal in the course of the reference proceedings.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
- practice and procedure
- labour and employment law
Table of Contents
2. Government ignored disputed employment relationship and unexplained delay of over 12 years in raising the industrial dispute. (Para 2 , 3 )
3. High Court wrongly examined conciliation records as in appeal; reference-making is administrative; issues require tribunal adjudication. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 )
4. Scope of judicial review under Article 226 against a Section 10 reference is limited; disputed facts require tribunal adjudication. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 )
5. Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside; Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal directed to adjudicate the reference including disputed issues. (Para 7 )
6. What is the scope of judicial review of a reference made under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act?
The High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 is limited; it cannot sit in appeal on the administrative order of reference and must leave disputed factual issues for tribunal adjudication. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 )
7. Can a High Court quash a Section 10 reference on the ground of unexplained delay in raising the dispute?
Unexplained delay is a relevant factor for the government to consider, but the High Court should not decide such an issue without leaving it for tribunal adjudication. (Para 3 )
8. Should disputed questions regarding the existence of an employer-employee relationship be decided by the High Court or the Labour Court?
Disputed questions such as whether workers were employees of the respondent must be adjudicated by the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal, not by the High Court under Article 226. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 )
Y.K.SABHARWAL, J.
(1) THIS appeal arises out of an order made by the High Court quashing the reference made to the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal in exercise of the powers under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. The question referred to the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal is as follows:
"WHETHER the termination of services of shri Harnam Singh and 20 other workers (list enclosed) by the Superintending Engineer, Punjab State Electricity Board, Shanan Power House, Jogindernagar, District Mandi, (H.P.) without any notice, chargesheet, enquiry and compliance Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is legal and justified, if not to what relief of past service benefits and amount of compensation, the aggrieved workmen are entitled to ?
(2) THIS reference was challenged before the High Court on the ground that the Government had not taken note of the contentions raised by the respondents that the appellants before us were not working under them and their claim was related in spite of a specified reference thereto in the report of the Conciliation Officer. Secondly, that the reference proceeds on the assumption that the appellants were workmen under the respondents and their services were terminated without any notice, chargesheet, enquiry and compliance of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act.
(3) WE are surprised to note in this matter that the High Court should have proceeded to examine the original records of the Conciliation Officer and that of the Government to arrive at a decision to find that when the petitioners have disputed the claim that they were working under them, the Government ought to have made a reference to that question. Apart from that, the Government has completely ignored the fact that the contesting respondents had invoked the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act more than 12 years after the alleged termination of service, when they have not given any explanation whatever, for the inordinate delay. When there is unexplained delay, the Government ought to have taken that as a relevant factor. When the Government has failed to do so, it is certainly open to exercise our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(4) THE High Court though notices that the proceeding arises under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act and making of a reference thereto is administrative in character still has examined this matter as if sitting in appeal on the reference made. In fact the scope of the investigation in such a matter is very limited and in this case the two issues could not have been decided except by adjudication before the concerned Competent Authority.
(5) THE learned Counsel for the appellants makes it clear that the two contentions raised before the High Court were included within the scope of reference made to the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal. In the circumstances we think that these two questions should be adjudicated by the concerned Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal in the course of adjudication of the reference.
(6) HOWEVER, Mr.H.M.Singh,learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that the order of the High Court is justified in the circumstances of the case particularly when there were inconsistencies in the claim made by the appellants and the material placed before the Conciliation Officer. If it is so, the issues could be adjudicated only by the Competent Authority like the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal. We, therefore, express no opinion on this aspect of the matter.
(7) IN the result we set aside the order made by the High Court and direct the concerned Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal to adjudicate the reference as ordered by the Government and while doing so, it shall examine the two questions referred to by us earlier in the course of this order. The appeal is allowed accordingly. In the nature and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Parties shall appear before
