Back
1968 Supreme(Mad) 76
Madras High Court
KAILASAM
Workmen of Dalmia Cement (Bharat) - Appellant
Versus
State Government of Madras - Respondent
Decided On : 02/16/1968
Important Points
Subject
Industrial Law - Industrial Disputes Act
Act Referred
Headnote
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT - REFERENCE OF DISPUTE - POWER OF GOVERNMENT TO REVISE ORDER - SECTION 10(1) AND 12(5) - INTERPRETATION - GOVERNMENT'S POWER TO MAKE REFERENCE UNDER SECTION 10(1) IS UNLIMITED AND CAN BE EXERCISED AT ANY TIME, EVEN AFTER REFUSING TO MAKE A REFERENCE UNDER SECTION 12(5).
Fact of the Case:
In various writ petitions, the question arose whether the Government, having once declined to refer an industrial dispute for adjudication, could, by a subsequent order, refer the same dispute for adjudication.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Government's power to make a reference under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act is unlimited and can be exercised at any time, even after refusing to make a reference under Section 12(5).
Issues: 1. Whether the Government has the authority to cancel an order issued under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act? 2. Whether the Government can make a reference under Section 10(1) after refusing to make a reference under Section 12(5)?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the observations of the Supreme Court in State of Bihar v. D. N. Ganguly, 1959 SCR 1191 : (AIR 1958 SC 1018), which held that the Government cannot cancel a reference made under Section 10(1), are confined to the facts of that case and cannot be applied to a case where the Government had refused to make a reference. 2. The court held that the Government's power to make a reference under Section 10(1) is unlimited and can be exercised at any time, even after refusing to make a reference under Section 12(5). This is because the power under Section 10(1) is subjective and the question whether a dispute exists or is apprehended is for the Government to decide.
Final Decision: The court dismissed all the writ petitions, holding that the Government's orders of reference were valid.
In W. P. No. 1721 of '66 Aiyar, Dolia, G. Venkataraman and A. L. Somayajulu, for Petitioners; Govt. Pleader, V. K. Thiruvenkatachari for King and Partridge, T. N. C. Rangarajan, for Respondents. In W. P. No. 1929 of '67 S. Gopalaratnam, for Petitioner; Govt. Pleader and V. Venkataraman, for Respondents. In W. P. Nos. 2900 and 2901 of '67 M. R. Narayanaswami, for Petitioners Govt. Pleader and K. V. Sankaran, for S. Ramaswami, for Respondents. In W. P. No. 3817 of '67 V. K. Thiruvenkatachari and T. N. C. Rangarajan, for King and Partridge, for Petitioners; Govt. Pleader, B. R. Dolia of Aiyar and Dolia and G. Venkataraman and A.L. Somayajulu, for Respondents.
In W P. No. 3436 of '67 V. K. Thiruvenkatachari for King and Partridge, for Petitioners; Govt. Pleader, B. R. Dolia of Aiyar and Dolia, for Respondents. In W. P. No. 3562 of '67 V. K. Thiruvenkatachari for King and Partridge and T. N. C. Rangarajan, for Petitioners; Govt. Pleader and B.R. Dolia of Aiyar and Dolia and G. Venkataraman and A. L. Somayajulu, for Respondents.
ORDER :- The question that arises in all these Writ Petitions is whether the Government having once declined to refer an industrial dispute for adjudication after consideration of a conciliation report, could, by a subsequent order, refer the same dispute for adjudication.
2. Writ Petitions Nos. 2900/67 and 2901/67 relate to a dispute between Best and Co. (P.) Ltd. and its workers. M/s Best and Co., was owning seven factories in Madras, and each of these factories had its own licence issued under the Factories Act, and workmen had been recruited for each factory separately. One of the factories, namely, Bestonite Factory, had to stop production due to non-availability of sulphuric acid. The factory was closed on 9-1-1966 and thirty-four employees, (29 workers and 5 in the staff section) were given notice and paid closure compensation. Of the thirty-four persons, seventeen persons (12 workers and five staff) received the amount and settled the accounts. The other seventeen put forward a claim through the Union that they should be absorbed and provided with employment in the other factories owned by the petitioner. The company declined the request of the Union and conciliation proceedings were held by the Labour Officer, who by his report dated 25-5-66 intimated to the Government that no conciliation could be effected. After considering the said report as well as the communication from the Commissioner of Labour dated 9-8-66, the Government acting under Section 12 (5) of the Industrial Disputes Act passed an order dated 3-9-1966 declining to refer the dispute for adjudication. The Government stated in the order that the Bestonite Factory was closed for bona fide reasons and that the other factories owned by the petitioner were separate entities and therefore, it was not possible to absorb the affected workers in any of them. The Union persisted in their claim and addressed a letter to the Deputy Secretary to Government, Department of Industries, Labour and Housing on 19-11-66 asking for reconsideration of the earlier order of the Government declining to make a reference for adjudication. A copy of the letter was served on the company. Subsequently, the Labour Officer requested a representative of the petitioner to go over to his office for discussion on 17-3-1967. The petitioner company explained their stand. Subsequently, by an order dated 11-7-1967 the Government, purporting to exercise the powers conferred on it under Sec. 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, referred the matter for adjudication to the Labour Court. W. P. No. 2900/67 is filed for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari for quashing the order of the Government referring the matter for adjudication on the ground that it is illegal, ultra vires and lacking in bona fides and opposed to principles of natural justice. W. P. No. 2901/67 is filed by the Company for the issue of a Writ of Prohibition restraining the Labour Court from proceeding with the trial and enquiry of the reference made to it by the Government.
3. W. P. No. 1929/67 relates to the dispute between the Kumbakonam City Union Bank Ltd., and the Secretary, Kumbakonam City Union Bank Employees Union, Kumbakonam. The Bank served a memo to S. Sivaraman, an employee of the Bank on 14-9-66 asking him to furnish his explanation as to why he should not be charged for certain offences. On 21-9-1966, Sivaraman furnished his reply. On receipt of the explanation, four charges were framed against the first respondent on 29-9-66 and he was notified that an enquiry would be conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice on 5-10-66 at 4 P. M. On 5-10-66, an enquiry was held by a sub-committee when Sivaraman was present and evidence was recorded. On 13-10-66, the enquiry body arrived at a provisional conclusion that Sivaraman was guilty. Notice was given as regards the proposed punishment and on receipt of the written statement from Sivaraman, the sub-committee on 17-10-66 dismissed him from serv
