( 1 ) THE petitioner in the above writ petition is the Management of Kirloskar electric Co. , Ltd. , Bangalore. It has Challenged the validity of the order dt. 26-11-1973 parsed by the Labour Court, Bangalore.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case are briefly these: In or about the year 1965, an industrial dispute arose, between the petitioner and its workmen with regard to the termination of services of an employee by name Jayaramiah. The matter was taken up before the Conciliation Officer who ultimately reported to the Government that the proceedings ended in failure. By its order dt. 23-2-1967 passed under S. 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the State Government declined to refer the said industrial dispute; for adjudication to the Labour Court. The workmen challenged the said order before this Court in WP. 203 of 1968. Only the State Government was impleaded as respondent to the said Writ Petition. The present petitioner was not impleaded as a party. The said Writ Petition was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court by its order dt. 11-1-1972. In the course of its order, this Court observed that the order parsed by the State Government declining to make a reference to the Labour Court did not show that the Government had applied its mind to the case and hence it was necessary for the Government to agpply its mind to the facts of the case and to take a decision in accordance with law on the question whether the matter shquld be referred for adjudication to the Labour Court or not. Thereafter, on a reconsideration of the said question, the State Government came to the conclusion that the dispute in question should be referred to Labour Court Accordingly, it made a reference by its order Nq. FCL 629 LLD 68 dt. 12-2-1973 to the Labour court to decide) the question whether the petitioner was justified in terminating the services of Jayaramaiah. In the course of the proceedings before the Labour Court the petitioner, among others, raised a contention that the reference made by the State Government was illegal and without jurisdiction because the parties to the case had not been heard by the state Government before making the order of reference. The Labour court repealed the said contention by the order which is impugned in these proceedings. Hence this writ petition.

( 3 ) SHRI V. L. Narasimha Murthy, learned Counsel for the) petitioner, contended relying upon the decision of the Supreme Cqurt in Kraipak v. Union of India, AIR. 1970 SC. 150, that the State Government had violated the rules of natural justice m referring the industrial dispute for adjudication to the labour Court without hearing the petitioner before making such a reference. He depended upon the following observations of the Supreme Court in the abqve case :"the dividing line; between an administrative power and a quasijudicial power is quite thin and is being gradually obliterated. For determining whether a power is an administrative pqwer or a, quasijudicial power one has to look to the nature, of the pqweir conferred, the person or persons on whom it is conferred, the frame work of the law conferring that power, the consequences ensuing from the, exercise of that power and the manner in which that power is expected to be exercised. In a welfare State like ours it is inevitable that the organs of the State under our Constitution is regulated and controlled by the rule of law. In a welfare State like qurs it is inevitable that the jurisdiction of the administrative bodies is increasing at a rapid rate. The concept of a rule of law would lose its validity if the instrumentalities of the State are not charged with the duty of discharging their functions in a fair and just manner. The requirement of acting judicially in essence is nothing but a requirement to act justly and fairly and not arbitrarily or capriciqusly. The procedures which are considered inherent in the exercise of a judicial, power are, merely those which facilit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document