Mehar Singh vs State of Haryana and Another

Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.—The petitioner avers that he was appointed as Chawkidar vide resolution dated February 17, 1990 passed by the Co-operative Society (Respondent No. 2). His services were terminated vide order dated June 18, 1990. Aggrieved by this action, the petitioner served a notice of demand dated February 26, 1991 praying for his reinstatement with full back wages. Vide order dated January 14, 1992, the State Government declined the petitioner''s request for a reference of the matter to the Labour Court. The petitioner''s application for reconsideration of the matter having met the same fate, he has approached this Court through the present writ petition. The action of the State Government in refusing to make a reference u/s 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has been challenged on the ground that it has been passed on irrelevant and extraneous considerations.

We have heard Mr. U.S. Sahni, learned Counsel for the petitioner. He contends that the State Government had no jurisdiction to refuse to refer the matter to the Labour Court. It could not have gone into the merits of the controversy and had to refer the industrial dispute to the Labour Court.

A perusal of the impugned order passed by the Government on January 14, 1992 shows that the State Government had formed an opinion that it was not a fit case "to be referred for adjudication to Labour Court because on enquiry it has been found that your employment in the above organisation is only for 4 months". Did the State Government err in doing so?

It is no doubt correct that the appropriate Government while examining the matter u/s 10 of the Act cannot go into the merits of the controversy. However, it appears equally clear to us that the appropriate Government is not required to act mechanically and refer every claim to the Labour Court. We cannot lose sight of the fact that reference of a matter to the Labour Court entails a fairly long drawn litiga-tive process which is time consuming and involves expending of public funds. It is also expensive for the management and the workman. It is on account of this reason that Section 10 of the Act provides that a reference has to be made where "the appropriate Government is of the opinion that any industrial dispute exists..." The formation of opinion regarding the existence of an industrial dispute is the primary condition which has to be fulfiled before the appropriate Government can make a reference to the Labour Court.

In the present case, it is indisputable that the petitioner had worked for a period of about four months, viz., from February 17, 1990 to June 18, 1990 when his services were terminated. This termination is not even prima facie shown to have been made in violation of any of the provisions of the Act. We asked the learned counsel to refer to any averment in the petition suggesting that a provision of the Act had been violated. He was unable to do so. In such a situation, we are of the opinion that the State Government was not unjustified in forming an opinion that there was no industrial dispute which may be required to be referred to the Labour Court.

Mr. Sahni drew our attention to the following observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Bombay Union of Journalists and Others Vs. The State of Bombay and Another, ) to contend that a reference had to be made. Their Lordships have observed as under:- (pp. 354-355)

"It is true that if the dispute in question raises questions of law, the appropriate Government should not purport to reach a final decision on the said questions of law, because that would normally lie within the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal. Similarly, oh disputed questions of fact, the appropriate Government cannot purport to reach final conclusions, for that again would be the province of the Industrial Tribunal. But it would not be possible to accept the plea that the appropriate Government is precluded from considering even prima facie the merits of the dispute when it decides the question as to whether its power to make a reference should be exercised u/s 10(1) read with Section 12(5), or not If the claim made is patently frivolous, or is clearly belated the appropriate Government may refuse to make a reference. Likewise, if the impact of the claim on the general relations between the employer and the employees in the region is likely to be adverse, the appropriate Government may take that into account in deciding whether a reference should be made or not. It must therefore, be held that a prima facie examination of the merits cannot be said to be foreign to the enquiry which the appropriate Government is entitled to make in dealing with a dispute u/s 10(1) State of Bombay Vs. K.P. Krishnan and Others, ).

A perusal of the above observations show that the State Government is entitled to decline the request of the workman, when it forms an opinion that the claim is wholly frivolous. The facts in the present case clearly indicate that the State Government''s opinion was not unfounded. The workman had worked for only four months. No provision of the Act was alleged to have been violated. In such a situation, it could be said that no industrial dispute requiring reference to the Labour Court existed. We are thus unable to accept the contention of the learned Counsel.

Accordingly, this petition is without any merit. It is dismissed in limine.