Devendra Kumar Gupta vs State of U.P. and Others

Paritosh K. Mukherjee, J.—The short point, calls for determination in the instant writ petition, is that, whether, while refusing to refer a dispute to the Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court, u/s 4K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''), it is incumbent upon the State Government to record ''reasons''.

Section 4K of the Act runs as under:

4K Reference of disputes to Labour Court or Tribunal.--Where the State Government is of opinion that any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended, it may at any time by order in writing refer the dispute or any matter appearing to be connected with, or relevant to, the dispute to a Labour Court if the matter of industrial dispute is one of those contained in the First Schedule or the Second Schedule for adjudication:

Provided that where the disputes relates to any matter specified in the Second Schedule and is not likely to affect more than one hundred workmen, the State Government may, if it so thinks fit, make the reference to a Labour Court.

Law, as it was before 1966, was that if the State Government refuses the matter to be referred to the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal, the said order was not justiciable.

However, during the time of Hon''ble P. B. Gajendra Gadkar, Chief Justice of India (as his Lordship then was), the Justiciability was included for the first time and, now, the law is that even if the State Government is exercising subjective satisfaction, as to whether an industrial dispute is existing, or apprehended, the same may be Justiciable.

In Sadhu Charan Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1993 ALJ 157, it has been held by this Court that discretion of Government of ''refusal'' is not absolute. Disclosure of reasons for refusal is mandatory.

Similar view was taken in Chandra Pratab Singh v. The U.P. State Cement Corporation Ltd. 1988 LIC (NOC) 33 (All), by this Court and it was held that the Government, after examining the case on merits and finding no substance in the same refused to refer the matter to the Labour Court, which was not proper in the absence of reasons.

I respectfully subscribe to the view taken in the case Sadhu Charan Singh and Chandra Pratap Singh (supra) by this Court.

In the present case, the impugned order, which is contained in Annexure 4 to the writ petition, is in only one sentence, informing the Petitioner that the Government did not find this matter to be fit for reference for adjudication by a Labour Court. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law.

In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 15.1.1986, contained in Annexure 4 to the writ petition is set aside. The State Government is directed to reconsider the whole matter and decide it afresh by a reasoned order. Parties shall bear their own costs.