Employers are not entitled to be heard before a reference order is issued, and dilatory tactics to evade a decision on merits are not acceptable.

The present writ petition has been filed for the quashing of the reference order dated 27th April, 2012, the order of the State Government dated 26th September, 2012, by which the reference order was amended. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 05th March, 2013, whereby the labour court rejected the application of the petitioner to consider the written objection first before they filed the written statement, and consequently, debarring the petitioner to file the written statement. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 04th April, 2013, whereby their recall application was rejected.

2. It transpires that the State Government referred the dispute of 14 workers with regard to the validity and legality of their order of termination dated 11th August, 2011. Subsequently, the reference order was amended exparte and the dispute of 74 workers was also incorporated. The contention of the petitioner is, that the amendment of the reference order could not have been done exparte without hearing the petitioner and without giving any notice.

3. The issue as to whether the employers are required to be given an opportunity of hearing before a reference is issued is no longer res integra. This issue has been decided by the Division Bench of this Court in Indian Explosive Ltd. (Fertilizer Division) Panki, Kanpur Vs. State of U.P. And others 1981 FLR (42) 423, The Division Bench of this Court held that neither the employer nor the workman can claim any right to be heard before an order of reference is made either initially or on second thoughts. The Court held that when an order is passed under Section 4-K of the Act, the power in substance is exercised on behalf of the public at large and in the interest of the community and that the order of reference on its own force, does not affect substantive right of the parties, which have to be ultimately decided by the Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court. The Division Bench was clearly of the opinion that neither the employer nor the workmen can claim any right to be heard before an order of reference is made either initially or on second thoughts.

4. In Cooper Engineering Ltd. Vs. P.P. Munde 1975 (2) LLJ 379, the Supreme Court held that there was no justification for any party to stall the final adjudication of the dispute by the labour court by questioning its decision with regard to the preliminary issue when the matter if worthy can be agitated even after the final award. The Supreme Court held that that it was legitimate for the High Court to refuse to intervene at the preliminary stage.

5. In S.K. Verma Vs. Mahesh Chandra and Others 1983 LIC 1483, the Supreme Court held that the preliminary objection has become quite a fashion to be raised by the employers, particularly in a public sector undertaking whenever an industrial dispute is referred to a Tribunal or Labour Court for adjudication. The Supreme Court said that it was a pity that when an industrial dispute is referred for adjudication, the employer instead of welcoming a decision by the Tribunal on merits, attempts to evade a decision on merits by raising such objection and, upon rejection of the objections, carry the matter to the High Court and to the Supreme Court wasting public time and money.

6. In D.P. Maheshwari Vs. Delhi Administration and others 1983 LIC 1629, the Supreme Court found that even after inviting the decision on a preliminary objection, the matter was carried to the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Supreme Court Under Article 136 of the Constitution causing undue delay in the disposal of the dispute. The Supreme Court found that at one stage, it was prudent to decide a preliminary issue first, but considering the dilatory tactics adopted by the parties in order to evade a decision on merits, the Supreme Court reversed this policy and held that the labour court should decide all the disputes at the same time as far as possible and that the Hig