The main legal point established in the judgment is that the decision of the appropriate Government to decline a reference under the ID Act must be supported by reasons, a conclusive decision, and proper application of mind to the facts and circumstances.

JUDGMENT

Chief Justice

1. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court (cor. Dipankar Datta, CJ. and M. S. Karnik, J.) disposed of Writ Petition (L) No.19001 of 2022, Writ Petition (L) No. 19171 of 2022 and Writ Petition (L) No.20338 of 2022 by a common judgment and order dated 25th August 2022, the operative part whereof reads as follows: -

''48. Regard being had to the ensuing Ganesh Chaturthi festival, which is so passionately celebrated by the people of this State with ritualistic devotion, requiring the members of the petitioners to vacate now would be too harsh. Therefore, we direct as follows:

a) Till 24th September, 2022 but not beyond, the members of the petitioners are permitted to occupy their respective allotted accommodation.

b) If any employee continues to occupy his allotted accommodation till that date, no coercive/adverse action as threatened by the impugned letters/notices be taken against him.

c) Upon expiry of 24th September, 2022, action in terms of the 1971 Act may be taken together with such other action as is available to the respondents in law against those employees who choose not to vacate their respective allotted accommodation.

d) Government of India may make a reference under section 10 of the ID Act by 15th September, 2022 and if reference is not considered expedient for any valid reason, the consequential order may be passed within the same date.

e) Depending on the nature of decision taken by the Government of India, the parties will be at liberty to adopt such course of action in future as permitted by law.

f) Should a reference under section 10 of the ID Act be made by the Government of India to the appropriate Tribunal for adjudication, such Tribunal will be free to decide the rival claims and grant such relief, if at all, in accordance with law.

g) If the Government of India does not make the reference on the premise that there exists no industrial dispute for reference or otherwise, it will be open to the members of the petitioners to work out their remedy in accordance with law.

49. The writ petitions stand disposed of on the aforesaid terms.

50. Except to the extent decided by this judgment, all other contentions are kept open.

51. All interim applications, including Interim Application (L) No.22361 of 2022 seeking intervention, stand disposed of.''

2. In compliance with the direction contained in sub- paragraph (d) of paragraph 48 of the aforesaid order, the Government of India in the Ministry of Labour considered the question of referring the industrial dispute between the management of Air India Limited and the Joint Action Committee of Air India Unions (hereafter 'the Joint Committee', for short) 'over the issue of vacation the Residential Quarters and deduction of' Productivity Linked Incentive ('PLI') amounts. The decision of the Ministry, which was sought to be communicated inter alia to the President of the Joint Committee by letter dated 15th September 2022, declined reference in the following words: -

''I am directed to refer to the Failure of Conciliation Report No.FOC report No.B7(12)2021-S1 dated 17/08/2022 (Dispute Id No.300015623 dated 31/12/2020) from the RLC (C) Mumbai received in this Ministry on 18/08/2022 on the above mentioned subject and to say that, prima facie, this Ministry does not consider this dispute fit for adjudication for the following reasons:

''Joint Action Committee of Air India Unions has raised a demand vide their letter dated 13.10.2021 against the management of Air India Ltd, in respect of continuation of residence of the staff, in their respective quarters, till their retirement. Since this demand is not connected to employment or non-employment or the terms of employment or with conditions of labour, this demand of extraneous nature cannot be construed as an Industrial Dispute as defined under section 2(k) of the ID Act, 1947. Therefore, this case is not deemed fit to be referred to the Tribunal for adjudication, hence, declined. Further, the principles of res-judicata are