9911796707
TMI Blog1976 (4) TMI 232X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , C.J. 1. This appeal by special leave turns on the question whether the State can be asked by a writ of mandamus to make a reference under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. The appellant was employed by the respondent company Hindustan Dowidat Tools Ltd. The services of the appellant were terminated on September 4, 1972. The appellant thereaft ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... given in the Industrial Dispute Act. 3. The appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution applied for a writ of mandamus directing the State to make a reference. The High Court dismissed the application. 4. The appellant contended that the question whether the appellant was a workman was a disputed question of fact and law which could be decided only by appropriate Labour Court. The appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the report referred to in Sub-section (4), the appropriate Government is satisfied that there is a case for reference, it may mike such reference. Where the appropriate Government does not make such reference it shall record and communicate to the parties concerned its reasons therefore. 6. this Court in State of Madras v. C.P. Sarathy (1953)ILLJ174SC and State of Bombay v. K.P. Krishnan and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e consider the case on a writ of mandamus. 8. In K.P. Krishnana's case (supra) the issues in dispute related to a claim of classification for specified employees and additional bonus and the sole ground on which the Government refused to refer the dispute for adjudication under Section 12(5) of the Act was that the employees had adopted go-slow tactics during the relevant year. The facts were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
