Central India Machinery Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs State of Rajasthan

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1982 Supreme(Raj) 372

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
N.M.Kasliwal, J.
Central India Machinery Manufacturing Co. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan and others - Respondent
Civil Writ Petn. Nos. 1722 and 1723 of 1981.
Decided On : 7-06-1982

Headnote:
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - SECTION 10(1) - REFERENCE OF DISPUTES - JURISDICTION OF GOVERNMENT - EXISTENCE OF INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE - SUBJECTIVE SATISFACTION OF GOVERNMENT - JUDICIAL REVIEW - SCOPE.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a company engaged in the manufacture and supply of railway wagons and structurals, declared a lockout on 6-10-1980 and dismissed 69 employees who were represented by CIMMCO Workers Union (Citu), Bharatpur. The workers union raised demands for wages during the lockout period, reinstatement of dismissed employees, bonus for the year 1979-80, etc. The conciliation officer submitted a failure report and the State Government made a reference of the disputes to the Industrial Tribunal.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the State Government had jurisdiction to make the reference as there was an industrial dispute in existence. The demand raised by the workers union in their letter dated 9-3-1981 was disputed by the petitioner in their reply dated 3-4-1981. The conciliation officer had submitted a failure report after both the parties remained absent on several dates. The Government had taken into consideration the failure report and was satisfied that it was a fit case for making a reference. The court further held that the petitioner had an adequate and efficacious remedy before the Industrial Tribunal, where it could raise all the contentions raised in the writ petition.
Issues: 1. Whether the State Government had jurisdiction to make the reference of disputes to the Industrial Tribunal? 2. Whether the petitioner had an adequate and efficacious remedy before the Industrial Tribunal?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The power conferred on the Government by Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to refer the dispute can be exercised only when there was an existing or apprehended industrial dispute. The Government reaches an administrative decision whether there exists an existing or apprehended, industrial dispute. In either events it can exercise its powers under this section. But in making the order of reference, the Government is doing an administrative act and the fact that it has to form an opinion as to factual existence of an industrial dispute as a preliminary step to the discharge of its function does not make it any the less administrative in character. 2. If the action of the Government in making reference is impugned by a party, it would be open to such a party to show that what was referred was not an industrial dispute and that the tribunal had no jurisdiction to make award. But if the dispute was an industrial dispute, its factual existence and the expediency of making a reference in the circumstances of a particular case are matters entirely for the Government to decide upon, and it will not be competent for the court to hold the reference back and quash the proceedings for want of jurisdiction merely because there was, in its opinion, no material before the Government, on which it could have come to an affirmative conclusion on these matters.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed with costs to the contesting respondent workers union.

JUDGMENT

1. - Both the above writ petitions are disposed of by one single order as they relate to identical facts and circumstances. In Writ Petition No. 1722/81 challenge has been made to a reference made by the State Government under S. 10 (1) read with S. 12 (5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act)hhh of the disputes whether the lockout declared on 6-10-1980 was valid and whether it was valid on the part of the employers not to declare bonus to the employees at the rate of 15% for the year 1979-80. In Writ Petition No. 1723/ 81 challenge has been made to a reference made by the State Government of the dispute whether the termination of 69 employees who are represented by CIMMCO Workers Union (Citu), Bharatpur, was valid. By these writ petitions the employer Central India Machinery Manufacturing Company Ltd., Bharatpur (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) has sought a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the State of Rajasthan to withdraw and/or cancel the order of reference made under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act and to forbear from taking any steps or action in pursuance thereof.

2. Briefly stated the facts leading to these writ petitions are that the petitioner is a company having its registered office at Birla Nager, Gwalior. It has several divisions and one of such divisions is the Wagon and Structural Division at Bharatpur, which is engaged in the manufacture and supply of railway wagons and structurals. In the aforesaid wagon factory at Bharatpur there are about 2500 workmen and employees. The workmen of this Wagon factory have from time to time formed seven trade unions, all of whom are registered under the Indian Trade Unions Act, 1926. All the aforesaid seven Trade unions are respondents in the writ petitions from numbers 4 to 10. It may be mentioned that the dispute now between the petitioner and its employees is about the employees who are represented by CIMMCO Workers Union, respondent No. 10 (hereinafter referred to as the workers union). According to the petitioner the workmen of the Wagon factory raised certain demands in June, 1980 and the matter was referred to the Conciliation Officer for settlement. Some time in July, 1980, a settlement was arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings and the terms of said settlement dated July 27, 1980 have been annexed and marked 'II'. According to the petitioner, the said memorandum of settlement had been signed by the petitioner and respondents Nos. 4 to 9, who were 6 trade unions and also by the Conciliation Officer. It is further alleged that a similar memorandum of settlement dated July 28, 1980 was also signed on behalf of the petitioner and the respondent No. 10, workers union. It may be mentioned at this stage that the respondent No. 10 workers union has denied the signing of the settlement dated 28th July, 1980 as alleged by the petitioner or presenting the same before the Conciliation Officer. The case of the petitioner further is that though all matters between the petitioner and the workmen of the Wagon Factory were settled in the course of conciliation proceedings, in spite of that, the Conciliation Officer did not send any report under S. 12 (4) of the Act. It is further allege that in spite of the settlement referred to above, some of the workmen of the Wagon factory aided and abetted by a large number of strangers indulged in committing various illegal and criminal acts in and around the Wagon factory. The workmen, inter alia, destroyed the properties of the petitioner and inflicted grievous injuries to various persons in the Wagon, factory. The grave and serious law and order situation compelled the petitioner to declare a lockout from Oct 6, 1980. In view of such criminal acts and large scale destruction of property, the petitioner was compelled to dismiss workmen who were guilty of criminal acts. According to the petitioner, the total number of the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1982 Supreme(Raj) 372

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCHN.M.Kasliwal, J.Central India Machinery Manufacturing Co. Ltd. - AppellantVersusState of Rajasthan and others - RespondentCivil Writ Petn. Nos. 1722 and 1723 of 1981.Decided On : 7-06-1982

Cases Referred (2)

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
N.M.Kasliwal, J.
Central India Machinery Manufacturing Co. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan and others - Respondent
Civil Writ Petn. Nos. 1722 and 1723 of 1981.
Decided On : 7-06-1982