AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard counsels for the parties.
Present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order of refusal of reference contained in letter dated 12.06.2013 passed by Ministry of Labour & Employment, Central Government, New Delhi.
The refusal order reads as under:-
"It is reported that the claimant workmen were engaged by the contractors and not by the management of M/s. Uranium Corp. of India Ltd. There is no employer employee relationship between the said management and the workmen. Hence the matter raised cannot be construed as an Industrial Dispute."
Petitioner before this Court is a Union, who has raised dispute for regularization of 303 workers, who according to them deserves regularisation as per mandate of law. On failure of conciliation, which has been reported vide report dated 25.04.2013 to the Central Government, the matter has been considered and finally vide impugned order contained in letter dated 12.06.2013, the reference has been refused.
Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Central Government has exceeded its jurisdiction and has decided the issue on merit that there is no employer and employee relationship between the disputing parties, this is not permissible. For this purpose, he has relied upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Telco Convoy Drivers Mazdoor Sangh and another Vs. State of Bihar and Ors., reported in (1989) 3 SCC 271 at Paragraph 13 which is quoted hereinbelow:-
"13. Attractive though the contention is, we regret, we are unable to accept the same. It is now well settled that, while exercising power under Section 10 (1) of the Act, the function of the appropriate government is an administrative function and not a judicial or quasi-judicial function, and that in performing this administrative function the government cannot delve into the merits of the dispute and take upon itself the determination of the lis, which woud certainly be in excess of the power conferred on it by Section 10 of the Act. See Ram Avtar Shara v. State of Haryana; M.P. Irrigation Karamchari Sangh vs. State of M.P.; Shambhu Nath Goyal vs. Bank of Baroda Jullundur."
Counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon the decisions of this Court rendered in L.P.A. No.206 of 1997(R) [National Coal Workers Congress vs. Union of India & Ors] and CWJC No.2451 of 1999(R) [National Coal Workers Congress vs. M/s Bharat Coking coal Ltd & Ors].
On the strength of above judicial pronouncement, it has been claimed that the order is being wholly unauthorised, should be quashed and the matter be remanded for fresh consideration.
Per contra, counsel for the respondents has submitted that the Central Government is not merely a post office rather he has been assigned duty of filtering the dispute. In course of filterisation, it has to be seen that the dispute is real or not, an imaginary dispute cannot be referred.
Heard counsel for the parties.
It is trite that alive dispute has to be referred, dispute must be either alive or apprehended in near future. Industrial Dispute, Act, 1947 has been enacted for the purpose of peace and harmony in the industrial concern and for smooth development of the economy. The power of adjudication has been given to the Labour Court/Tribunal, Central Government is not an adjudicatory authority rather he has been authorised under Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, to consider the dispute between the parties only to the limited extent that whether dispute exist or apprehended or not? It is trite the function of the Central Government is administrative in nature and no adjudicatory role has been assigned.
From mere perusal of the refusal order, it is evident that Central Government has adjudicated upon the relationship between the disputing parties. It has been adjudicated that there is no relationship of employer and employee between the disputing parties. This is a adjudicatory function, not assigned to the Central Government. It is also trite every citizen of India has fundamental right to move before an adjudicator for resolving the dispute. This right of an individual or citizen cannot be snatched by the Central Government.
Industrial Disputes, Act, 1947, also gives right to move Industrial Adjudicator, only exception has been created for stale claim or non-existence dispute. An Industrial dispute can be refused if stale but alive dispute has to be referred and Central Government has no authority to adjudicate merit of the case.
In view of above discussion, this Court finds that impugned order contained in letter dated 12.06.2013 is not sustainable in law being wholly unauthorised and without jurisdiction. Accordingly, the same is, hereby quashed and the matter is remitted back to the concerned government for taking a fresh decision in accordance with law within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.
With the above observations and direction, this writ petition stands disposed of.
Pending I.A, if any, also disposed of.