TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1985 (4) TMI 350
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... cause within 48 hours of the receipt of the charge-sheet as to why suitable disciplinary action should not be taken against each of I hem. The charge-sheet referred to an incident that occurred on 11th April, 1983 at 8.15 A.M. between two groups of workers presumably owing loyalty to rival unions. The misconduct alleged against each petitioner was the one set out in Standing Order 20 (XIV) and 20(XXV) of the Certified Standing Orders of the employer. Briefly stated, the charges were that the petitioners were guilty of fighting or riotous or disorderly behaviour as also manhandling beating etc. other workmen of the Company which acts were subversive of the discipline expected of the workmen of the Company. It is alleged that disciplinary enquiry followed and the enquiry officer submitted his report holding each of the petitioners guilty of the misconduct imputed against him. The Assistant Vice-President of the employer Company, after having gone through the report submitted by the enquiry officer and after perusal of the record of proceedings of enquiry and the connected documents concurred with the findings recorded and reported by the enquiry officer holding the petitioners guilt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ked absent went to the residence of the Foreman Shri Gurbachan Singh and enquired from him why they were not permitted to join duty, Shri Gurbachan Singh declined to have given any direction in this behalf and rebuked the petitioners for coming to his residence and accused them of misbehaviour. The petitioner and several other then approached the General Foreman who intervened and ordered the petitioner and others to join duty. Gurbachan Singh thereafter lodged a complaint with the third respondent, Senior Divisional Mechanical Engineer, alleging that the petitioner has misbehaved with him and had attempted to manhandle him. On receipt of this report from Gurbachan Singh, Petitioner was placed under suspension on August 5, 1981. and was served with a charge-sheet The petitioner denied the imputation. A disciplinary enquiry followed. Surprisingly the enquiry officer, Senior Loco Inspector Shri joginder Lal, did not record the statement of Shri Gurbachan Singh who was she prime witness but examined two other witnesses who claimed to be the neighbourers of Shri Gurbaehan Singh the enquiry office: submitted his report dated October 24, 1981 holding the petitioner guilty of misconduct. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) ILLJ 174 SC a Constitution Bench of this Court observed as under : But, it must be remembered that in making a reference under Section 10(1) the Government is doing an administrative act and the fact that it has to form an opinion as to the factual existence of an industrial dispute as a preliminary step to the discharge of its function does not make it any the less administrative in character. The Court can-not, therefore, canvass the order of reference closely to see if there was any material before the Government to support its conclusion, as if it was a judicial or quasi-judicial determination. 6. Explaining the ratio of the decision in Sarathy's case [1970] 2 S.C.R. 370, in Western India Match Co. Ltd. v. Western India Match Co. Workers Union and Ors. [1978] 25 S.C.R. 793 it was observed as under : In the State of Madras v. C.P. Sarathy [1970] 2 S.C.R. 370 this Court held on construction of Section 10(1) of the Central Act that the function of the appropriate Government thereunder is an administrative function. It was so held presumably because the Government cannot go into the merits of the dispute its function being only to refer such a dispute for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nto the merits of the dispute and take upon itself the determination of lis. That would certainly be in excess of the power conferred by Section 10. Section 10 requires the appropriate Government to be satisfied that an industrial dispute exists or is apprehended. This may permit the appropriate Government to determine prima facie whether an industrial dispute exists or the claim is frivolous or bogus or put forth for extraneous and irrelevant reasons not for justice or industrial peace and harmony. Every administrative determination must be based on grounds relevant and germane to the exercise of power. If the administrative determination is based on the irrelevant, extraneous or grounds not germane to the exercise of power it is liable to be questioned in exercise of the power of judicial review. In State of Bombay v. K. P. Krishnan and Ors. [1961] 1 SCR 243 It was held that a writ of mandamus would lie against the Government if the order passed by it under Section 10(1) is based or induced by reasons as given by the Government are extraneous, irrelevant and not germane to the determination. In Such a situation the Court would be justified in issuing a writ of mandamus even in re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....are statement that a domestic enquiry was held in which charges were held to be proved, if it is considered sufficient for not exercising power of making a reference under Section 10(1), almost all cases of termination of services cannot go before the Tribunal. And it would render Section 2A of the Act denuded of all its content and meaning. The reasons given by the Government would show that the Government examined the relevant papers of enquiry and the Government was satisfied that it was legally valid and that there was sufficient and adequate evidence to hold the charges proved. It would further appear that the Government was satisfied that the enquiry was not biased against the workmen and the punishment was commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct charged. All these relevant and vital aspects have to be examined by the Industrial Tribunal while adjudicating upon the reference made to it. In other words, the reasons given by the Government would tantamount to adjudication which is impermissible. That is the function of the Tribunal and the Government cannot arrogate to itself that function. Therefore if the grounds on which or the reasons for which the Government dec....