A. Anthony Pitchai vs The Government of Tamil Nadu and another

Aggrieved by G.O.(D) No.75, Labour and Employment Department, dated 1.2.1993 refusing to make a reference for adjudication by the

Government, the petitioner seeks a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent relating to G.O.(D) No.75,

Labour and Employment Department, dated 1.2.1993 and letter No.14435/181/93-4, dated 2.2.1994, quash the same and direct the first

respondent to refer the dispute for adjudication.

In brief, the petitioner, a driver, working in the second respondent Corporation, was charged for his negligence for causing an accident on

11.8.89, when he was on duty in Bus No.7989 plying between Tirunelveli and Madurai route, near Thulukkupatti, by dashing against a boy, who

sustained head injuries, with reference to which, the management issued a charged memo, framed charges, called for explanation and not satisfied

with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, held a domestic enquiry, found the petitioner guilty of the charges and consequently, awarded a

punishment of stoppage of one year increment without cumulative effect to the petitioner, which necessitates the petitioner to approach the

Government to made a reference of the dispute for adjudication, whereby the Government by G.O.(D) No.75, Labour and Employment

Department, dated 1.2.1993, which is impugned in the above writ petition, refused to make reference on the ground that the domestic enquiry was

fairly and properly conducted and the punishment was awarded and hence, the claim of the petitioner, challenging the punishment, is frivolous.

In this connection, I am obliged to refer the decision of the Apex Court in M/s. Shaw Wallace & Co., Ltd., v. State of Tamil Nadu rep. by

Commissioner and Secretary, Labour Department and others, 1988(1) LLJ 177. While interpreting Sections 2-A, 10(1), 11-A and 12(5) of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Apex Court has laid down the power of the Government u/s 10 to refuse to make reference of dispute for

adjudication, indicating the exceptions as follows:

On an analysis of the various decisions of the Supreme Court and the other cases, the following principles emerged:-

(1) The Government would normally refer the dispute for adjudication.

(2) The Government may refuse to make reference, if

(a) the claim is very stale;

(b) the claim is opposed to the provision of the Act;

(c) the claim is inconsistent with any agreement between the parties;

(d) the claim is patently frivolous;

(e) the impact of the claim on the general relations between the employer and the employees in the region is likely to be adverse;

(f) the person concerned is not a workman as defined by the Act;

(3) The Government should not act on irrelevant and extraneous considerations.

(4) The Government should act honestly and bona fide.

(5) The Government should not embark on adjudication of the dispute; and

(6) The Government should not refuse reference on the ground thai domestic enquiry was fairly and properly held and punishment awarded was

appropriate (Italics supplied)

The principles emerged in the above said decision make it clear that the Government should not refuse to make reference for adjudication on the

ground that the domestic enquiry was fairly and properly held and the punishment awarded was appropriate.

If that be so, it may not be fair on the part of the Government to contend that the claim of the petitioner, challenging the punishment awarded in

the impugned proceedings, is frivolous.

Hence, I am obliged to interfere with the impugned Government Order and quash the same with a direction to the concerned Labour Court to

complete the adjudication and pass appropriate orders on merits within a period of one month from the date of the reference. Consequently, the

writ petition is allowed as prayed for. No costs.