The authority of the State Government to make a reference under S. 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, even after a prior decision not to make a reference, is upheld as an administrative act.

NITTOOR SREENIVASA RAU, C. J.

( 1 ) IN this writ petition the petitioner seeks that the order of reference made by respondent 1, the state of Mysore, to respondent 2, the labour court at Hubli, of an industrial dispute between the petitioner, who was the employer as proprietor of Prabhat Talkies, Mangalore, and the workmen of Prabhat Talkies, represented by the secretary, Cinema Mazdoor Sangh, Mangalore, in regard to the retrenchment of the employee (respondent 4 ). Kesava Devangha, be quashed as also the award by respondent 2, the labour court, on the reference.

( 2 ) THE reference is attached on the ground that previous to that reference, i. e. , under S. 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the State Government had, after receiving the report of the conciliation officer in regard to the very dispute, taken a decision to the effect that the dispute did not merit reference for adjudication, that the decision had been communicated to the parties concerned and that, therefore after having made and communicated a decision, Government had ceased to have any further power to reopen the matter and make a reference. The reference is also challenged on the ground of inordinate delay which had resulted in a change in the position of the industry and that the belated reference would result in arbitrary interference with the running of the industry. As regards the award consequent on the reference, it is contended that the award resulting from a reference made without authority could no legal effect.

( 3 ) CONTENTIONS have also been urged against the award to the effect that the Cinema Mazdoor sangh could not represented the workmen of the Prabhat Talkies, that the cause of the employee, keshava Devangha, had not been taken up by a substantial number of workmen of the talkies, that the workmen had ceased to be a member of the union and that the findings to the effect, that the retrenchment of the workmen was not bona fide and was only by way of victimizing him for his trade union activities, were not sustainable on the material on record.

( 4 ) AS regards the contentions raised in respect of the award itself, they relate in substance to questions of fact. The labour court has found that the Cinema Mazdoor Sangh in the proved circumstances had the right to represent the workmen, that a substantial section of the workmen had espoused the cause of the employee, that the circumstances showed that no retrenchment was really called for that therefore the purported retrenchment was designed by the way of victimizing a troublesome employee. We see nothing in the award to indicate that theses conclusions of fact have either no material to support them or that they are totally divorced from the material. Hence, these findings cannot be interfered with within the scope of the present proceedings.

( 5 ) AS regards the State Government's power to make a reference even after its once coming to the conclusion that the dispute did not merit a reference on a consideration of the report of the conciliation officer, it is urged that, whatever the position might be, when no such prior decision has been taken by Government, the matter assumes a different complexion once such a decision has been taken. It will be noticed that under S. 12 (5) the appropriate Government has to record and indicate to the parties concerned its reasons in the event it decides not to make a reference of the dispute to a board, labour Court, tribunal or national tribunal. It is suggested that the decision, therefore, is of a quasi-judicial character and cannot be later on superseded by what would virtually be an arbitrary decision. It is no doubt true that S. 12 (5) reads as if it represents the culminating step after the earlier stages contemplated by Ss. 12 to 12 (4 ). But it is now well-settled that the reference contemlated under S. 12 (5) does not represent the conferment of an independent power on the State Government to make a reference, but that even such a ref

Click Here to Read the rest of this document