Back
2006 Supreme(Mad) 32
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. SATHASIVAM & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE CHITRA VENKATARAMAN
The Management of E.I.D.Parry (India) Limited - Appellant
Versus
The Government of Tamil Nadu & Others - Respondents
Writ Appeal Nos. 977 to 979 of 1999 and C.M.P.Nos. 9739 and 9740 of 1999
Decided On : 06 January 2006
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the decision of the Government under Section 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is subject to judicial scrutiny on limited grounds, and an administrative order is subject to judicial review, though on much more limited grounds than a quasi-judicial order.
Headnote:
Industrial Disputes Act - Reference of Dispute - Section 10 (1) (d) - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the statutory decision of the Government to refer an industrial dispute for adjudication under Section 10 (1) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The court analyzed the relevant provisions of the Act and the order of reference made by the Government in G.O (D) No. 318 dated 30-4-1993. It held that the decision of the Government under Section 10 (1) of the Act is subject to judicial scrutiny on very limited grounds. The court also considered the principles laid down in various decisions and concluded that an administrative order is subject to judicial review, though on much more limited grounds than a quasi-judicial order.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute arising from the transfer of the Deccan Sugars Undertaking at Pugalur from Nava Bharat Ferro Alloys Limited to E.I.D. Parry (India) Limited, resulting in the non-employment of nearly 651 workmen. The Government of Tamil Nadu made an order of reference under Section 10 (1) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which was challenged by the concerned parties through writ petitions. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions, upholding the order of reference made by the Government.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the decision of the Government under Section 10 (1) of the Act is subject to judicial scrutiny on limited grounds. It also held that the order of reference made by the Government was based on relevant considerations and that the Government had formed a valid opinion that an industrial dispute existed. The court further concluded that the earlier decision of the learned Single Judge did not constitute res judicata, as the issues and parties involved were different. The court also rejected the contention that the validity of the transfer of undertaking cannot be adjudicated by the Industrial Tribunal, emphasizing that the Tribunal is free to adjudicate all relevant issues raised by the parties.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the validity of the Government's decision to refer the industrial dispute for adjudication, the applicability of Section 25-FF of the Act, and the contention of res judicata based on an earlier decision of the learned Single Judge.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the principles laid down in various judicial decisions. It emphasized that the decision of the Government under Section 10 (1) of the Act is subject to judicial review on limited grounds and that the order of reference was made based on relevant considerations.
Final Decision: The court dismissed all the writ appeals, upholding the order of reference made by the Government. It directed the Industrial Tribunal to answer the order of reference in accordance with the law and to send a report regarding the compliance of the order.
(Writ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against orders dated 3-2-1999 in W.P.No.11407, 11408 and 12539/93 respectively passed by learned Single Judge of this Court.)
P. Sathasivam, J.
The above Writ Appeals are directed against dismissal of common order of learned Single Judge dated 03-02-1999 made in Writ Petition Nos. 11407, 11408 and 12539 of 1993 respectively as devoid of any merit.
2. The Management of E.I.D. Parry (India) Limited, Pugalur, aggrieved by a Notification of the Government of Tamil Nadu in G.O (D) No. 318 dated 30-4-1993 referring the dispute between Deccan Sugar Mills, Pugalur and the Management of Nava Bharat Ferro Alloys Limited, E.I.D. Parry (India) Limited, Pugalur, has filed Writ Petition No. 11407 of 1993. Questioning the very same Government Order of reference, Management of Nava Bharat Ferro Alloys Limited, Madras has filed Writ Petition No. 12539 of 1993. The Management of E.I.D. Parry (India) Limited, Pugalur has also filed Writ Petition No. 11408 of 1993 seeking for a Writ of Prohibition, prohibiting the Industrial Tribunal, Madras from proceeding to adjudicate the dispute referred to it by the Government in G.O (D) No. 318 dated 30-04-1993. Since the challenge in all the three Writ Petitions is one and the same, the learned Single Judge by the aforesaid common order dated 03-02-1999, after accepting the stand taken by the Government as well as the workmen and after finding that there is no valid ground for interference with the order of reference made by the Government, dismissed all the Writ Petitions. Questioning the said common order, E.I.D. Parry has filed Writ Appeal Nos. 977 and 978 of 1999 and Navabharat Ferro Alloys Limited has filed Writ Appeal No. 979 of 1999. In view of the common issue raised, the Writ Appeals are disposed of by the following common order.
3. The Deccan Sugars Undertaking at Pugalur was transferred from Nava Bharat Ferro Alloys Limited to E.I.D. Parry (India) Limited. As a result of this transfer, nearly 651 workmen were rendered jobless. An Industrial Dispute raised in this regard culminated in an order of reference under Section 10 (1) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. This order of reference made by the Government in G.O (D) No. 318 dated 30-4-1993 was challenged by the transferor namely, Nava Bharat Ferro Alloys Limited as well as the transferee E.I.D. Parry Limited in Writ Petition Nos. 12539 of 1993 and 11407 of 1993 respectively. Apart from these two writ petitions, another Writ Petition, namely, Writ Petition No. 11408 of 2003 was filed by E.I.D. Parry (India) Limited seeking to issue a Writ of Prohibition restraining the Industrial Tribunal from proceeding with the Industrial Dispute under reference. As said earlier, all these Writ Petitions were dismissed by a common order dated 03-02-1999 upholding the order of reference made by the Government of Tamil Nadu.
4. Heard Mr. Rajiv Dhawan, learned Senior Counsel for appellant in Writ Appeal Nos. 977 and 978 of 99; Mr. T.R. Rajagopalan, learned Senior Counsel for appellant in Writ Appeal No. 979 of 99; Mr. A.L. Somayaji, learned Additional Advocate General for Government; Mr. R. Viduthalai, learned Senior Counsel for Trade Unions and Mr. M. Damodaran, learned counsel for 9th Respondent in all the Writ Appeals.
5(a). Mr. Rajiv Dhawan, learned senior counsel appearing for E.I.D. Parry (India) Limited, after taking us through the agreement dated 30-10-92 between E.I.D. Parry (India) Limited and Nava Bharath Ferro Alloys Limited, sale-deed dated 13-11-92, order of reference made in in G.O(D) No.318 Labour and Employment Department dated 30-4-1993 by the Government of Tamil Nadu, common order of the learned Single Judge dated 3-2-1999 and various provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, has raised the following contentions:
(i) The decision of the Government to refer or not to refer an Industrial Dispute is a statutory decision, and, therefore, the impugned order is subject to judicial re
