The main legal point established in the judgment is the scope of judicial review on the Government's decision to refuse to refer a dispute for adjudication, the relevant considerations for the Government in making such a decision, and the powers of the Industrial Tribunal under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

JUDGMENT :

T. Chandrasekhara Menon, J.—The General Secretary of the Automobile Employees Association has filed this writ petition on behalf of the Association. One Mr. Raghavan Nair was an employee of the 2nd respondent-Calicut Wynad Motor Service (Pvt.) Ltd. He was dismissed from service by the employer for the alleged misconduct of receiving fares from 15 passengers without issuing tickets. The employee had denied the charges. An enquiry was conducted and pursuant to the same the services of the employee was terminated.

2. At that time an industrial dispute between the management and its workmen were pending before the Industrial Tribunal, Calicut, as Industrial Dispute No. 31 of 1972. Therefore, the management moved the Industrial Tribunal, Calicut for approval of the action taken against the employee, which approval was granted from 21-10-1974, from which date the dismissal took effect,

3. The employee as well as the petitioner-union of which he is a member raised an industrial dispute relating to the dismissal of the employee. It had been contended by the union that the termination of services of the concerned conductor was an act of victimisation and that the enquiry conducted was a farce and that the finding arrived at the enquiry was perverse since the finding is not supported by legal evidence.

4. The Conciliation Officer-Deputy Labour Commissioner reported failure of conciliation u/s 12(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (hereinafter referred to as " the Act"), The Government refused to refer the case for adjudication. The reason is that the Government considers " that prima facie a proper enquiry was conducted by the Management". The petitioner-union seeks to quash this order of the Government. It is contended that the reason gives for not referring the dispute for adjudication is vague and not germane to the facts of the case. The jurisdiction of the Government not to refer a dispute to adjudication must be considered be very limited. If the claim raised by the union or the workmen is clearly belated, the Government can refuse to refer the question. The reason given here is that Government considers it not expedient to refer the matter because the employer has conducted an enquiry. That cannot constitute a valid reason for not referring an industrial dispute to adjudication. In considering the question whether the matter should be referred to industrial adjudication the Government will have to consider not only that there has been a proper domestic enquiry but also the domestic Tribunal could have come to the conclusion it has on the basis of the facts in evidence before it in view of the expanded jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal u/s 11A of the Act.

5. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State where it is stated that the refusal to refer the dispute by Government was based on the facts available to Government. On considering those facts, Government came to the conclusion that prima facie a proper domestic enquiry was conducted by the management giving every chance to the worker to defend his case before inflicting the punishment. Therefore, Government did not consider it expedient to refer the case for adjudication and the reason communicated to the worker in Ext. P3 was self-explanatory. Government had considered all the relevant aspects of the case before coming to the conclusion that there is no case for reference. It is also pointed out that the subjective decision of Government which is administrative is not amenable to judicial review and there has been no erroneous application of law or any unjustifiable or illegal exercise of power by Government in the matter. Government considered those points which are germane to the issue and the decision was also communicated to the petitioner.

6. As regards the scope of judicial review on a decision of refusal to refer the dispute by Government the law on the matter is now well-settled. The question has been considered by the Supreme Court in Sta