Back
1980 Supreme(P&H) 94
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Harbans Lal, J.
Modella Textile Workers Union, Chandigarh
Versus
Union Of India
Civil Writ Petn. No. 6432 of 1975,
Decided On : MARCH 7, 1980
The Government's power to refer disputes to the Industrial Tribunal under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is discretionary, but it must act in accordance with Section 10(1) and record reasons for not making a reference when a failure report has been submitted under Section 12(4).
Headnote:
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT - REFERENCE OF DISPUTE - SCOPE OF GOVERNMENT'S POWER - EMPLOYEES CLAIMING TO BE WORKMEN - GOVERNMENT DECLINING REFERENCE ON GROUND OF EMPLOYEES BEING IN SUPERVISORY CAPACITY - HELD, GOVERNMENT COULD NOT COME TO CONCLUSION ON PRIMA FACIE PERUSAL OF CONTROVERSY THAT CLAIM OF EMPLOYEES WAS FRIVOLOUS - REFERENCE TO INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL DIRECTED.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a trade union, challenged the decision of the Chandigarh Administration declining to refer a dispute relating to the termination of services of two employees to the Industrial Tribunal. The employees claimed to be workmen under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, while the Administration contended that they were employed in a supervisory capacity and hence not covered by the definition of "workman".
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Government could not come to the conclusion on a prima facie perusal of the controversy that the claim of the employees was frivolous and that the dispute required evidence to be adduced on both sides before a decision could be reached. The court further held that the Government's decision to decline reference of the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal was an administrative decision and not a judicial decision, and that such matters were intended to be left for adjudication by the Tribunal.
Issues: 1. Whether the Government was justified in declining to refer the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal on the ground that the employees were employed in a supervisory capacity? 2. Whether the employees were workmen under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Government's power to refer disputes to the Industrial Tribunal under Section 10(1) and Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is discretionary, but the Government must act in accordance with Section 10(1) and record reasons for not making a reference when a failure report has been submitted under Section 12(4). 2. The Government cannot go into detailed or exhaustive enquiry into questions of law or fact involved in the dispute, but it can consider the prima facie merits of the dispute in deciding whether to make a reference. 3. If the claim of the workman is patently frivolous or absolutely belated, the Government is not precluded from declining to make a reference. 4. The main work of an employee must be considered in determining whether he is employed in a supervisory capacity or not.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, the decision of the Administration declining to make a reference to the Industrial Tribunal was quashed, and the Administration was directed to make a reference of the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal without any loss of time.
1. This writ petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution has been filed by the Modella Textile Workers Union (hereinafter to be called the petitioner) for quashing the order dated April 26, 1975 (Annexure P-7) of the Chandigarh Administration, respondent No. 1, whereby the demand of the petitioner for reference of the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal under the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter called the Act), pertaining to the termination of services of Shri C. L. Rampal and Shri Kartar Singh was declined.
2. According to the averments in the writ petition, Shri C. L. Rampal, was employed as a Dyeing Master also known as lalari in 1963 by M/s. Modella Woollen Mills Ltd., respondent No. 2, and was discharged from service with immediate effect by the employer by its order dated July 10, 1973 (Annexure P-1). Similarly, Shri Kartar Singh, who was employed by respondent No. 2, on Dec. 15, 1963 and was designated as Shift Superintendent, was discharged from service by order dated July 17, 1973 (Annexure P-2), with immediate effect. Both of them made separate representations on July 23, 1973, challenging the termination of their services as illegal and improper and as a result of victimization and requested respondent No. 2 to reinstate them. Copies of their representations are Annexures P-3 and P-4.
Thereafter, the matter was taken up by the petitioner and a demand notice was served on the respondent management to reinstate both these employees and to settle the matter by mutual negotiations. The dispute was subsequently referred to the Conciliation Officer. As the conciliation proceedings also did not bear fruit, the report was submitted by the Conciliation Officer to the Chandigarh Administration. The petitioner consequently served a demand notice on the Administration to refer the dispute relating to these two workmen to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. Reference was, however, declined by respondent No. 1 and the General Secretary of the petitioner was informed of the decision by the Home Secretary, Chandigarh Administration vide his letter dated April 26, 1975 (Annexure P-7). The reference was declined on the ground that both these employees were working in a supervisory capacity and as such, they did not fall within the definition of "workman" as embodied in the Act. The legality and validity of this decision has been challenged in the present writ petition.
3. According to the averments in the writ petition, both Shri C. L. Rampal and Shri Kartar Singh were covered by the definition of workman as given in S. 2 (s) of the Act. Shri Rampal was stated to be performing the duties of colouring on small samples on the wool and matching of the shade of woollen tops by testing the samples so coloured in the laboratory of the respondent management in order to find out the economical nature of the sample. This process called colouring and matching involved manual labour and technical experience. Subsequent thereto another process of weighing of colour for the purpose of balancing and for knowing course of colour had to be gone into. The said Rampal, it was further averred, was also doing himself the work of colour dissolving to produce the dyestuff. He was also handling the dyeing machine where the effectiveness of the dye solution known as dyestuff was checked. In addition to this, his duties also included the working on the carrier and for loading stuff in the carrier with the help of the other helpers. He was also doing tests and mixing of chemicals necessary for use in textile such as acids, dyeing-assistance as retarding agents etc. He was also required to work and check the working of the machine to note the temperature, valve, acidity and alkalinity. He was entrusted with the duty of manning the control panel and pressure gauge. He was operating the printing machine It was also emphasised that no other helper was put under him and all the tests in order to find out the effect of sea-water,
