1989 (4) TMI 342 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Orders Bihar to Refer Union Dispute to Industrial Tribunal, Stresses Administrative Role in Decisions.

The SC allowed the appeal by Telco Convoy Drivers Mazdoor Sangh, overturning the Patna HC's decision and the State of Bihar's refusal to refer the dispute ... Power of the appropriate Government under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act to refer disputes - administrative function of forming opinion whether an industrial dispute exists or is apprehended - prohibition on the Government adjudicating the merits of an industrial dispute - status of 'workman' as a question for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal, not by the Government - judicial direction to the Government to make a reference to an Industrial TribunalAdministrative function of forming opinion whether an industrial dispute exists or is apprehended - prohibition on the Government adjudicating the merits of an industrial dispute - Whether the appropriate Government exceeded its jurisdiction by deciding on the merits whether the convoy drivers were workmen and thereby refusing to make a reference under Section 10(1) of the Act. - HELD THAT: - The Court held that the exercise of power under Section 10(1) is an administrative function confined to forming an opinion whether an industrial dispute 'exists or is apprehended' and does not permit the Government to decide the lis on merits. The Government, through the Deputy Labour Commissioner and subsequently on reconsideration, concluded that the convoy drivers were not workmen and declined to refer the dispute; that amounted to adjudication of the substantive controversy which the appropriate Government is not empowered to undertake in the Section 10(1) exercise. The Court relied on established precedents that the Government must not usurp the adjudicatory role of the Industrial Tribunal and that it should be slow to refuse reference except in clearly perverse or frivolous cases. Applying those principles, the Court found the Government's refusal unsustainable because it decided the core question of workman status instead of referring it for adjudication. [Paras 11, 13, 15]The Government was not justified in adjudicating the dispute as to whether the convoy drivers were workmen; such determination cannot be made in exercise of Section 10(1) and the impugned orders refusing reference are unsustainable.Power of the appropriate Government under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act to refer disputes - judicial direction to the Government to make a reference to an Industrial Tribunal - Whether the Court should direct the State Government to refer the dispute to an Industrial Tribunal under Section 10(1) after the Government persistently declined to do so. - HELD THAT: - Having found that the Government impermissibly adjudicated the dispute and declined to refer it, the Court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction to direct the State of Bihar to make a reference under Section 10(1) of the Act. The Court noted precedents where it had directed references when the Government wrongfully refused to refer disputes and concluded that the present controversy-whether the convoy drivers are workmen of TELCO-should be adjudicated by the Industrial Tribunal. Consequently, the Court directed the State to refer the dispute contained in the Sangh's letter dated October 16, 1986 to an appropriate Industrial Tribunal within one month. [Paras 16, 17, 18]The Court directed the State of Bihar to make a reference under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act of the dispute raised by the Telco Convoy Drivers Mazdoor Sangh to an appropriate Industrial Tribunal within one month; the High Court judgment and impugned orders are set aside.Final Conclusion: The appeal is allowed: the Supreme Court held that the Government exceeded its jurisdiction by deciding on the merits that the convoy drivers were not workmen and, therefore, wrongly refused to refer the dispute under Section 10(1); the State of Bihar is directed to refer the dispute to an appropriate Industrial Tribunal within one month; the High Court's dismissal and the impugned executive orders are set aside, with no order as to costs. Issues:1. Refusal to make a reference of disputes to the Industrial Tribunal under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.2. Jurisdiction of the Government in deciding industrial disputes.3. Role of appropriate Government in adjudicating disputes under Section 10(1) of the Act.Analysis:The judgment involves the appeal by Telco Convoy Drivers Mazdoor Sangh against the Patna High Court's dismissal of their writ petition challenging the State of Bihar's refusal to refer their disputes to the Industrial Tribunal. The dispute revolved around whether the convoy drivers were workmen or employees of TELCO, determining the existence of an industrial dispute. Initially, the Deputy Labour Commissioner and the Government refused to make a reference, leading to the High Court's dismissal of the writ petition. The Supreme Court directed the Government to reconsider the matter, emphasizing that the Government's role is administrative and not judicial or quasi-judicial. The Court highlighted that the Government cannot decide the dispute's merits but should refer it to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. The judgment cited precedents to establish that the Government's refusal to make a reference was not justified, emphasizing the need for the Tribunal to adjudicate valid disputes.The Court rejected the argument that the Government could decide the existence of an industrial dispute based on whether the disputants were workmen. It emphasized that the Government's function under Section 10(1) is administrative and should not involve delving into the dispute's merits. The judgment underscored that the Government's attempt to decline references without valid reasons would undermine the Act's provisions. The Court directed the State of Bihar to refer the dispute to an appropriate Industrial Tribunal within a specified timeframe, highlighting previous instances where the Court intervened to ensure references were made when the Government declined. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed, setting aside the High Court's judgment and the impugned orders, with no order as to costs.In conclusion, the judgment clarifies the appropriate Government's role in adjudicating industrial disputes under the Industrial Disputes Act, emphasizing the administrative nature of its function and the necessity to refer disputes to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. The Court's decision underscores the importance of ensuring valid disputes are adjudicated through the proper legal channels, maintaining the Act's integrity and purpose.