1976 (4) TMI 232 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
- Whether the State can be compelled by a writ of mandamus to make a reference under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

Analysis:
1. The case involved an appeal where the appellant's employment was terminated, and he demanded reinstatement. The Conciliation Officer initiated proceedings, but no settlement was reached, leading to a report sent to the State Government.
2. The State Government decided not to refer the case to the Labour Court, stating that the appellant, as an Electrical Foreman with a salary exceeding Rs. 500 per month, did not fall under the definition of a "workman" as per the Industrial Disputes Act.
3. The appellant sought a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution to compel the State to make a reference, but the High Court dismissed the application.
4. The appellant argued that the question of whether he was a workman should be decided by the Labour Court and not the State Government. He contended that the issue raised questions of fact and law that only the Labour Court could adjudicate.
5. The relevant sections of the Industrial Disputes Act were discussed, emphasizing the role of the appropriate Government in referring disputes for adjudication.
6. Previous judgments were cited to establish that the decision of the Government under Section 10(1) and 12(5) of the Act is administrative and not judicial or quasi-judicial.
7. The Court clarified that in considering a writ of mandamus against the Government's decision, it does not sit in appeal but may intervene if the Government's reasons were based on irrelevant considerations.
8. A past case was referenced where the Government's refusal to refer a dispute for adjudication was deemed improper due to irrelevant considerations, leading to the issuance of a writ of mandamus.
9. In the current case, the State Government's decision was based on the appellant not meeting the definition of a workman, thus justifying the refusal to make a reference for adjudication.
10. The High Court's dismissal of the application was upheld, and the appeal was consequently dismissed, with each party bearing their own costs.