Back
2011 Supreme(Mad) 3534
High Court of Judicature at Madras
K. CHANDRU
M/s. Swaathi Enterprises, rep by its Managing Partner G. Mudiyarasan
Versus
The Government of India, rep by its Secretary, Ministry of Labor and Employment & Others
W.P.No.7894 of 2009 & M.P.No.1 of 2009
Decided on : 05-08-2011
For the Petitioner:T. Murugamanickam, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R2 - S. Arunachalam Associates, R3 - V.J. Arunkanagaraj, Advocates.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Government has the power to reconsider its decision to refuse a reference of an industrial dispute, and the grounds for challenging administrative orders are narrower than those for quasi-judicial orders.
Headnote:
Labour Dispute - Industrial Dispute - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 12(4), Section 10(1) - The court discussed the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, particularly Section 12(4) and Section 10(1), and their interpretation in the context of the power of the Government to refer disputes for adjudication. The court also considered relevant case law, including O.N.G.C. Madras Port Contract Employees' Union v. The Management of Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. and Western India Match Company Ltd. v. Their Workmen, to determine the scope of judicial review and the circumstances under which a reference can be made after an earlier refusal.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to challenge an order of reference made by the Government of India regarding the termination of 23 workers. The Government had initially declined to make the reference, citing a pending civil suit. The petitioner contended that the refusal was without proper consideration and filed a writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Government had the power to refer the dispute at any time and that the earlier refusal did not preclude a reconsideration of the matter. It also emphasized that the grounds for challenging an administrative order are narrower than those for a quasi-judicial order.
Issues: The issues involved the Government's power to refer industrial disputes, the relevance of a pending civil suit, and the scope of judicial review over administrative orders.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the Government could reconsider its earlier decision to refuse a reference, provided the dispute was industrial in nature. It also clarified the limited grounds for challenging administrative orders.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the Tribunal was directed to proceed with hearing the reference, giving preference for the disposal of the dispute.
1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking to challenge an order of reference made by the first respondent, Government of India, Ministry of Labour, dated 27.2.2009. By the aforesaid order, the Government of India had referred the issue relating to termination of 23 workers as per the names annexed to the order for adjudication by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court at Chennai. It was also stated that in case the Tribunal holds that termination was erroneous, then what relief those workmen were entitled to?
2. It is seen from the records that the second respondent trade union had raised a dispute relating to non employment that termination of 23 workers were in order to destroy their trade union. On the representation sent by the second respondent, notice was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted a remarks dated 10.3.2008 stating that they had decided to close the quarry operations with effect from 1.11.2006 and they had also informed the authorities. Since the workers owning agricultural lands, they are only working as a part time workers. But the workers were asked to come and collect their dues. On the contrary, they had entered into a contract for granite quarry with one Sridhar under raising-cum-sale system. It is only the said Sridhar who is running the quarry. Since the second respondent union had insisted on the said contractor to recruit their members, he had also agreed to do so if so required. But, instead of persuading claim with the agreement holder, they had raised a dispute.
3. The Conciliation Officer, i.e., Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Chennai as he could not bring about mediation, had recorded the failure of conciliation under Section 12(4) of the I.D.Act and sent the report, dated 5.6.2008 to the first respondent Government of India. The Government of India, by an order dated 15.10.2008 had declined to order reference on the specious ground that the matter was sub-judice before the Munsif Court, Attur, Salem. Hence reference could not be granted.
4. It must be noted that the suit in O.S.No.428 of 2007 was filed before the District Munsif Court, Attur seeking for an interim injunction against 22 workers covered by the reference. It was only a bare injunction suit. It was filed on the basis that he is an agreement holder to operate the quarry and had obtained agreement from the petitioner. The 22 workers were indulging in unlawful activities and trespassing into the quarry land. It is not clear as to how the Government of India can refuse to refer on the ground of pendency of civil suit relating to the claim for bare injunction against the workers. The issue before the Government of India was whether the termination by the petitioner in respect of 23 workers was justified or not? However, the Government of India by the impugned order had reconsidered the entire issue and had issued the impugned order, dated 27.02.2009 and referred the matter for adjudication by the third respondent Tribunal. Even before the third respondent could take up the issue for adjudication, the petitioner filed the writ petition which was admitted on 27.4.2009 and an interim stay was granted.
5. On notice from this court, the first respondent Government of India had filed a counter affidavit dated Nil (February, 2010). It was stated that the Government has power under Section 10(1) to refer the dispute at any time and the power does not dry up merely because it was initially refused. Further, the Government of India has jurisdiction to refer the dispute relating to mines as the appropriate Government is the Government of India.
6. On behalf of the second respondent Union, a counter affidavit dated Nil (February, 2010) was filed. In the counter affidavit, it was stated that the petitioner was indulging in an unfair labour practice and was creating an unnecessary civil dispute. The civil case has nothing to do with the dispute raised by the union. They had also
