The court emphasized the duty of the Government to communicate relevant reasons for not making a reference under S.10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the grounds for interference with the punishment imposed upon the workmen by the management after enquiry.

1. In these two cases similar questions arise for decision. The petitioners in these cases were employed by the Cochin Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Cochin as Sworn Measures. They were charged with negligence and dereliction of duty and after enquiry they were dismissed from service. Their cases were taken up by their Unions, one of them by the Cochin Commercial Employees' Association, Cochin-1 and the other by the Mercantile Employees' Association, Calicut. The Government ultimately, by Ext. P3 order in both these cases informed the parties that they do not propose to refer the matter for adjudication. The ground stated was

"As the management has taken action in accordance with the canons of natural justice, prima facie the action of the management is not malafide".

This was the sole ground. The State Government was under a duty to communicate the reasons for not making a reference under S.10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and evidently it was such reason that was communicated by Ext. P3 in both these cases.

2. In both these petitions the challenge is to this decision of the Government by which they informed the Unions that they do not propose to refer the dispute for adjudication. The ground on which attack is made to this order is that the reason mentioned in Ext. P3 is irrelevant and extraneous and has no relation to the decision to be reached by the Government.

3. S.10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (referred to hereinafter as the Act) as originally enacted, opened with the words "where any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended". It was subsequently amended by S.3 of the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1952 to read as it appears in the section row as "Where the appropriate Government is of opinion that any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended". As the section originally stood the courts had taken the view that the decision of the Government as to whether reference was to be made or not was amenable to judicial review and the court can even look into the question whether the industrial dispute exists or is apprehended. It was so decided by the High Court of Madras in Kundan Textile Ltd. v. Industrial Tribunal (1949) LLJ. 218, Rajus Cafe v. Industrial Tribunal (1951) LLJ. 875 and T. D. Ramayya Pontula v. Kutty & Rao (Engineers) Ltd., (1949) LLJ. 13. The vagueness of the term "If any Industrial Dispute exists or is apprehended" was pointed out by the Supreme Court in United Commercial Bank Ltd. v. U. P. Bank Employees Union, 1952 (2) LLJ. 577 by Chandrasekhara Iyer J. Later the Supreme Court considered the scope of the section in State of Madras v. C. D. Sarathy,1953 (1) LLJ. 174 and stated the law on the question. The amendment was evidently intended to remove the vagueness pointed out by the Supreme Court in 1952 (2) LLJ. 577.

4. Though the order of the Government under S.10(1) is an administrative order. S.12(5) imposes a duty on the Government in cases coming to its notice on report of conciliation proceedings to record and communicate reasons where the Government decides not to refer. In such cases the reasons indicated in the order of the Government may call for examination when the order is under challenge. It is not necessary to discuss this question in detail, for the section has received interpretation by the Supreme Court in a number of decisions. In the leading case on the subject, State of Bombay v. Krishnan, 1960 (2) LLJ. 592, at 602 Gajendragadkar J. discussing the scope of S.12(5) said thus:

"The order passed by the Government under S.12(5) may be as administrative order and the reasons recorded by it may not be justiciable in the sense that their propriety, adequacy or satisfactory character may not be open to judicial scrutiny; in that sense it would be correct to say that the court hearing a petition for mandamus is not sitting in appeal over the decision of the Government; nevertheless if the Court is satisfied that the reasons given by the Government for refu