The court emphasized that the first respondent cannot base its decision to decline a reference on irrelevant considerations and must refer the issue for adjudication unless the dispute is frivolous.

The Order of the Court was as follows :

The challenge in this writ petition is to the order of the first respondent dated July 26, 2000, in and by which, the first respondent declined to refer an issue relating to the change in the shift pattern of the workmen of the second respondent as raised by the petitioner for adjudication on the ground that the said change was sought to be introduced by the second respondent after due notice under Section 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act.

According to the petitioner, which claims membership of substantial section of workmen working in the first respondent, that it was a recognised union representing the workmen of the second respondent, that from its inception, the working hours in the second respondent Power Station is by way of round the clock working in three shifts namely,

1. Night Shift : 10.00 p.m. to 6.00 a.m. (First Shift)

2. Morning Shift : 6.00 a.m. to 2.00 p.m. (Second Shift)

3. Evening Shift : 2.00 p.m. to 10.00 p.m. (Third Shift)

It is claimed that the shift pattern is in a cycle and the crew in each shift has to work for six days and should switch over to the next shift, that the crew undergo four cycles in a month and each of the cycle consisting of six days spell. It is also stated that the crew who worked in night shift for six days will get three off days following the cycle, that thereafter, the crew would move to evening shift and after completing the six days in the evening shift, the crew would have one day off, and then they would move to morning shift for six days, and when after completion of six days, they would get two day off. Again they would go to night shift as before. It is also contended that the said system which was prevailing from the date of inception, was applicable only in regard to the employees employed in the round the clock shift system who were not given weekly off and off on second Saturdays and they wore also not given National and Festival holidays. It is further claimed that the other employees employed in the general shifts i.e. between 8.00 a.m. to 4.00 p.m. and 9.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. are given weekly off, off on second Saturdays and National and Festival holidays.According to the petitioner, while the abovesaid shift timings are satisfactorily working, by a notice dated April 27, 2000 purported to have been issued under Section 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, the second respondent proposed to change the round the clock system and also the shift timings with effect from May 22, 2000 i.e. on the expiry of 21 days' notice. The proposed change, according to the petitioner, sought to introduce two days off after four days night shift instead of three days off, one day off after four days of morning shift and four days of evening shift, thereby reducing two days off in the morning shift. The proposed timings as per the change sought to be introduced were as under :

1. Night shift : 11.00 p.m. to 7.00 a.m. (First Shift)

2. Morning shift : 7.00 a.m. to 3.00 p.m. (Second Shift)

3. Evening shift : 3.00 p.m. to 11.00 p.m. (Third Shift)

It is claimed that the petitioner union opposed the proposed change through their letter dated May 6, 2000, that a strike notice was also marked to the Conciliation Officer, that in such circumstances, by virtue of the operation of Section 20(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the conciliation deemed to have commenced, that by a notice dated May 8, 2000, the Conciliation Officer initiated conciliation proceedings by calling upon he parties to come for conciliation on May 11, 2000, that when the proceedings pending before the Conciliation Officer, a counter proposal was made at the instance of the petitioner which was not acceptable to the second respondent and that thereafter, the second respondent was not willing to hold further talks at the bilateral level by sending a communication dated June 8, 2000 to the Conciliation Officer. It is claimed that in those circumstances, the conciliation failure report wa