Rajpal Singh vs State of U.P. and Others

Heard the counsel for the petitioner and Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No. 1, 2 and 4. Respondent No. 3 is represented by Sri Shashi Nandan. Although notice was served on February 22, 1995, but none has appeared on behalf of respondent No. 3. We dispose of this petition by setting aside the order contained in Annexure-II of the writ petition whereby the reference of the dispute to the lower court has been refused.

Now the principle settled by the Supreme Court in the case of Toloc Convoy Drivers Mazdoor Sangh v. State of Bihar that, "In considering the question of making a reference u/s 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Government is entitled to form an opinion as to whether an industrial dispute "exists or is apprehended". The formation of opinion as to whether an industrial dispute "exists or is apprehended is not the thing as to adjudication of the dispute itself on its merit. While exercising power u/s 10 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 the administrative function, the Government cannot delve into the merits of the dispute and take upon itself the determination of the lie, which would certainly be in excess of the powers conferred on it by Section 10 of the Act.

In the present case, similar provision as contained in Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act is u/s 4-k of the U.P. Industrial Dispute Act. The provision being similar, the same principle is applicable here and on this basis, we do not find any reason for the Government to refuse to make any reference of the dispute to the Labour Court. In the circumstances, we direct the state of U.P. to make a reference u/s 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act of the dispute raised by the petitioner to the appropriate labour court within one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. The petition is accordingly allowed.