2024 (8) TMI 1096 - HC - Indian Laws

Ministry of Labour's Decision Overturned; Dispute on Termination Sent for Fair Hearing to Labour Court.

The HC quashed the impugned order by the Ministry of Labour, which refused to refer the dispute for settlement regarding the petitioner's termination. The ... Application under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - appropriate Government's power to refer an industrial dispute - administrative function versus adjudicatory function in making reference - inadmissibility of deciding merits while exercising power to make reference - right under Section 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - remand to appropriate Government for making referenceAppropriate Government's power to refer an industrial dispute - administrative function versus adjudicatory function in making reference - inadmissibility of deciding merits while exercising power to make reference - Validity of the order of the appropriate Government refusing to make reference on the ground that the petitioner had worked only for 85 days and lacked documentary proof of continued employment - HELD THAT: - The Court held that while the appropriate Government, when considering whether to make a reference, may form an opinion as to whether an industrial dispute 'exists or is apprehended', it exercises an administrative function and is not entitled to adjudicate the dispute on merits. The authority cannot determine whether the person raising the dispute is a workman or decide substantive questions which are to be adjudicated by the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal after reference. The impugned refusal to make reference based on the technical finding that the petitioner had worked for only 85 days and the absence of documentary evidence improperly ventured into merits and was therefore unsustainable. [Paras 6, 8]The refusal to make reference dated 05.07.2010 is legally unsustainable insofar as it adjudicated merits (the 85-day finding and absence of documentary proof) and cannot stand.Application under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - right under Section 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - remand to appropriate Government for making reference - Relief to be granted in view of the unsustainable refusal and the appropriate course of action - HELD THAT: - The Court distinguished precedents relied upon by the respondents as inapposite to the present controversy, noting that the matter raised Section 25H and related entitlement which requires adjudication by the competent Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal. Having quashed the impugned order for encroaching upon merits, the Court remitted the matter to the appropriate Government with a direction to make reference so that the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal may decide the issues after affording both parties opportunity of hearing. [Paras 9, 10]Impugned order dated 05.07.2010 quashed and set aside; matter remitted to the appropriate Government for making reference of the dispute.Final Conclusion: Impugned administrative order refusing to make reference was quashed for impermissibly adjudicating merits; matter remitted to the appropriate Government to make reference so that the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal may decide the dispute after due opportunity to the parties. Issues:1. Challenge to impugned order refusing to make reference for settlement of dispute.2. Interpretation of provisions under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 regarding termination of services.3. Competency of appropriate Government to adjudicate disputes on merits.Analysis:The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging an order by the Ministry of Labour, Government of India, which refused to make a reference for settlement of a dispute arising from the termination of the petitioner's services without notice or hearing. The petitioner claimed to have raised an industrial dispute under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which was rejected by the appropriate Government on the grounds of insufficient evidence of employment duration. The petitioner argued that the order was not sustainable as the authority lacked competence to adjudicate the dispute on its merits, citing a relevant court judgment for support.The respondents contended that the petitioner had worked for only 85 days and had not completed the requisite 240 days in a calendar year, making certain provisions of the Act inapplicable. They also raised the petitioner's age and potential superannuation as factors against interference by the Court. The respondents cited a judgment by the Hon'ble Apex Court to support their arguments.Upon considering the submissions and the record, the Court found that the competent authority refused to make a reference based solely on the petitioner's limited work duration without considering other grounds raised. The Court referenced a previous judgment emphasizing that the appropriate Government's role is administrative and not judicial, and it cannot delve into the merits of the dispute. The Court distinguished the cited judgment by the respondent's counsel, stating that the issues raised in the present case were different and required adjudication by a competent Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal.Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned order and remitted the matter to the appropriate Government for making a reference of the dispute, emphasizing the need for due opportunity of hearing to both sides. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions, and any pending applications were also disposed of accordingly.