Table of Contents

SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................. 3

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 3

LEGISLATIVE INTENT ............................................................................................................... 3

ENACTMENTS WITH MECHANISM FOR ADJUDICATION ............................................................. 4

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED IN ASSENT ............................................................................ 6

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED IN DISSENT ........................................................................ 11

1. THAT THE GOVERNMENT S POWER UNDER SECTION 10 DOESN T NEED ANY CHANGES .... 11

2. THAT THE POWER CONFERRED UPON THE TRIBUNAL IS ADEQUATE AND DOES NOT NEED
ANY REVISION UNDER ANY SPECIALISED APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND THAT ANY APPEAL

SHOULD DIRECTLY LIE TO THE HC OR SC .............................................................................. 12

3. SUGGESTIONS .................................................................................................................... 13

CASE LAWS .......................................................................................................................... 15

CASE 1:PRABHAKAR v. JOINT DIRECTOR, SERICULTURE DEPT. & ANR. .......... 15

CASE 2: RAGHUBIR SINGH v. GENERAL MANAGER, HARYANA ROADWAYS,

HISSAR................................................................................................................................ 17

CASE 3: OFFICER IN CHARGE v. RAM BAI ................................................................. 19

CRITICAL ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................ 21

Industrial Adjudication| 2
 SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION
The author in this article has attempted to evaluate the functioning of the industrial adjudication
machinery in India. Overviewing the historical aspects, the author delves into the analysis of
various labour legislations and evaluates the effectiveness of the principal act, i.e., The
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and its modality of working for investigation and settlement of
disputes.

While discussing various Central and State Acts, and grouping them into various categories,
the author has drawn the contours of development in the field of industrial adjudication in India
since its inception during the British Raj. The author while citing relevant English and Indian
cases has tried to bring out the heighted subject matter that is the excessive deliberation of
powers in the hands of the Government.

As industrialisation began in India only in 19th century and modernisation took place only in
the last 50 years or so, India has witnessed the development in labour laws in equal parlance
with the world, as an advancement of civilisation from being recognised as a property to a
person. During its inception, the labour regulations were industry specific, such as factories
and minings. In its later phase, different approaches for labour welfare was adopted, for
instance, social welfare legislation, wages legislation, social insurance legislation, trade union
legislation and legislation on settlement of disputes. is one such document that
reflected on the working conditions of labourers in the factories at Bombay which subsequently
led to numerous amendments and repeals in the factory acts. Henceforth, the Factories Act
1948 came into existence.

LEGISLATIVE INTENT
The author, while stressing upon the core concept of adjudicatory mechanism, traced back its
enforcement in India in form of compulsory adjudication for industrial disputes through Rule
81A of Defence of India Rules, 1939 which aimed at maintaining industrial peace and harmony
for war efforts.

The real legislation on industrial adjudication became a mainstream idea only after the adoption
of Indian Constitution. The preamble and provisions under Part III and Part IV of the Indian
Constitution have close bearing on the labour laws. As inspired from the preamble, the labour
legislation intends to secure social, economic and political justice and dignity of individuals.

Industrial Adjudication| 3
Directive principles also exercises considerate influence over the enactment of labour
legislations. Mainly, Article 41, 42, 43, 47 set out the underlying goals of the right to work,
maternity relief, living wage, nutritional facility, etc. Further, Article 246 and List III of
Schedule VII of the Indian Constitution, provides for distribution of legislative powers between
Union and States.

ENACTMENTS WITH MECHANISM FOR ADJUDICATION

The article dealt with various enactments in force wherein some system for adjudication of
industrial disputes is established. For instance,

i. Beedi and Cigar Workers Act, 1966 sets out 3 different appellate authorities to hear
cases of wrongful dismissal.
ii. Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 has prescribed authority for
restoration of the possession of property to bonded labourers.
iii. the provident fund
commissioner can make a quasi-judicial determination of the amounts due from the
employer to the provident fund.
iv. established a regular employees
court for adjudicating upon the disputes.
v. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is regarded as the principal central Act governing the
investigation and settlement of industrial disputes. Herein, the adjudicating
authorities are defined as labour courts, tribunals and national tribunals constituted
under the Act.

The author in the article and

has offered an overall critical analysis of the Act with respect to industrial adjudication of
disputes. Section 10A of the Act is recognised as the principal provision for statutory arbitration
by the Apex Court of India as distinguished from arbitration under the Arbitration Act 1940.

While discussing Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, the author has stressed on the need
to make amendments in this section by highlighting different loopholes that are present in this
provision. He has not explicitly gone into the socio-welfare objective but has limited his
argument to what is autonomy and what is abuse of power. While discussing the relevant case
laws he has suggested reforms which may prevent abuse, and at the same time provide for a
better welfare mechanism.

Industrial Adjudication| 4
The author has further substantiated his stance with examples where upon deliberation of power
to different authorities as resulted in faster resolution of the disputes. At the end the author has
highlighted how the section needs reforms and how the present take by the government may
prove to be arbitrary if necessary steps are not taken.

The author concludes with the viewpoint that industrial disputes Act is enacted for investigation
and settlement of industrial disputes in a peaceful manner. The Act however, curtails the power
of trade unions to resort to strikes and also correspondingly curtails the power of the
management to resort to lock-outs in various circumstances. It is only when all the remedies
under the Act for investigation and settlement of a dispute are exhausted that either the
employees or the employers are expected to resort to the tactics of collective bargaining. This
wide power of the government is product of third party governmental interference and
mediation into the relationship of employers and employees which was formerly governed only
by the terms of contract of service which could not be specifically enforced. It is possible that
the government may use this machinery of making a reference for furthering the cause of a
particular union, though it may not be necessarily be in the interest of the working class. The
author submits that it is the inherent need of time to do away with this sole prerogative of the
government to initiate the industrial adjudication.

Industrial Adjudication| 5
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED IN ASSENT

The paper reflects on the key features highlighted by the author. The view put forward by the
author needs consideration and the idea put forward by him needs deliberation. The power to
make reference of a particular dispute has been invested in the Central Government where if it
deems fit to it, in furtherance to this it will make a reference. This power is exercised under
Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. In continuation of the same, we shall try to
depict the significant difference that exists between autonomy of government and excessive
power of government, as the concept of rule of law would be vitiated if the instrumentalities of
the States are not charged with the duty of discharging duties in a fair and just manner.

The first step is where the government see whether the dispute in question actually qualifies as
industrial dispute or not, for this the definition given under 2(k) has to be seen. Labour
Adjudication is one of the means of settlement of disputes between an employer and his
employee(s). It involves determination of a question of fact or law arising out of a labour
dispute judicially by trial through a court or a tribunal having the attributes of a court. Some of
the major industrial dispute settlement machinery are as follows:
1. Conciliation
2. Court of Inquiry
3. Voluntary Arbitration
4. Adjudication.
This machinery has been provided under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It, in fact, provides
a legalistic way of setting the disputes. As said above, the goal of preventive machinery is to
create an environment where the disputes do not arise at all. Even then if any differences arise,
the judicial machinery has been provided to settle them lest they should result into work
stoppages. In this sense, the nature of this machinery is curative for it aims at curing the
aliments.

This machinery comprises following organs:

1. Conciliation
2. Court of enquiry
3. Voluntary arbitration
4. Adjudication (Compulsory arbitration).

Industrial Adjudication| 6
Now the bare text reading of Section 10 specifies-
(1) [Where the appropriate government is of opinion that any industrial dispute exists or is
apprehended, it may at any time], by order in writing-

a) refer the dispute to a Board for promoting a settlement thereof; or

b) refer any matter appearing to be connected with or relevant to the dispute to a court for inquiry;
or
c) [refer the dispute or any matter appearing to be connected with, or relevant to, the dispute, if
it relates to any matter specified in the Second Schedule, to a Labor Court for adjudication; or
d) refer the dispute or any matter appearing to be connected with, or relevant to, the dispute,
whether it relates to any matter specified in the Second Schedule or the Third Schedule, to a
Tribunal for adjudication:

PROVIDED that where the dispute relates to any matter specified in the Third Schedule and is not likely
to affect more than one hundred workmen, the appropriate government may, if it so thinks fit, make the
reference to a Labor Court under clause (c):]

[PROVIDED FURTHER that] where the dispute relates to a public utility service and a notice under
section 22 has been given, the appropriate government shall, unless it considers that the notice has
been frivolously or vexatiously given or that it would be inexpedient so to do. make a reference under
this sub-section notwithstanding that any other proceedings under this Act in respect of the dispute may
have commenced:

[PROVIDED ALSO that where the dispute in relation to which the Central Government is the
appropriate government, it shall be competent for that government to refer the dispute to a Labor Court
or an Industrial Tribunal, as the case may be, constituted by the State Government]

[(1A) Where the Central Government is of opinion that any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended
and the dispute involves any question of national importance or is of such a nature that industrial
establishments situated in more than one State are likely to be interested in, or affected by, such dispute
and that the dispute should be adjudicated by a National Tribunal, then, the Central Government may,
whether or not it is the appropriate government in relation to that dispute, at any time, by order in
writing, refer the dispute or any matter appearing to be connected with, or relevant to, the dispute,
whether it relates to any matter specified in the Second Schedule or the Third Schedule to a National

Industrial Adjudication| 7
The author with help of different case laws has established that the ambit of Section 10 gives
unrestricted powers to the Central Government to make choices according to its own wish and
whims. This unrestricted power in the hands of the government is only controlled by the
conditions set out for making reference under Section 33-A. Apart from these conditions, the
government is the sole deciding body with unfettered powers of making a call. Further ahead,
there are no specific conditions under which these references are to the made, the government
at any time which deems fit to it can make a reference, with absolutely no one to question their
stance. Also once the reference is made by the authorities it can t be recalled or withdrawn,
meaning once executed, it can t be undone even if it reveals an arbitrary nature. The conditions
specified by the government in the referred order have to be strictly adhered by the tribunals
or any other adjudicating body presiding over the matter, as the bottom line has already been
prescribed by the government.

Moreover, in the judicial aspects, the power given to the courts to call for judicial review is
very narrow in such kinds of disputes. Only if the government does not make a reference in a
dispute, then the only power courts have is to ask the government to reconsider its opinion but
however it can not force the government to do so. In this way the government becomes an
important party or even if it is acting as a third party its intervention becomes necessary and
this unlimited power can sometimes lead to abuse of power.

In its landmark judgement, State of Madras v C.P Sarathy1, the court while interpreting the
unamended Section 10(1) held that government is the sole authority to decide whether the
matter should be send for reference, and the stance of the government should be considered
final. However, the Supreme Court emphasised on the power of judicial review that can be
invoked whenever an administrative action is challenged, as substantiated in the case of A.K
Kraipak v. Union of India2. The exception to the rule stated in 10(1) and 10(2) lies in 33(2)(C).
However, the section talks only about conditions to be adhered to while making a reference
and not about the rule of reference, also there may be times when the order of reference may
itself be incompetent, but we know that once the order is made it cannot be changed, and this
was one of the subject matter of Sindhu Resettlement Case.

1
State of Madras v C. P. Sarathy, 1953 SCR 334.
2
A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 150.

Industrial Adjudication| 8
With the evolution of time the definition of workmen has changed, to eradicate excessive
labour exploitation the concept of welfare state came into picture. Now welfare state is an ideal
situation where the rights and duties of the workmen are respected and taken care of. But it has
also come into picture that were the affected party is the government itself it has tried to do
away with the reference option.

For instance, in Hochtief Gammon v State of Orissa3, since the affected party was the
government itself as it represented Hindustan Ltd., it tried to do away with the reference point,
but Hochtief filed a special appeal in the Supreme Court. The Apex Court in response held that
the court will exercise some power in order to interfere and will make sure that there is no
arbitrariness involved. There might be certain instances where even if the government uses a
subsidiary to make a reference that might still be against the interest of the workmen. The
courts have the power to see that the executives act lawfully. It cannot avoid scrutiny if it does
not provide reasonable arguments, thus become open to judicial scrutiny.

Thus, the shift in approach of the judiciary can be observed from Sarathy case to the Hochtief
Gammon case, wherein the court concluded that the earlier position that courts cannot closely
canvass the reference order, it being an administrative order, and that the factual existence of
the dispute are left entirely to the government, has been radically altered with the Gammon
case.

Upon reading and interpretation of Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, it is conclusive
that the Act gives very vast discretion to the government to refer to an industrial dispute for
The quoted words have gained significance and the scope and
import of these words become relevant as there is a conciliatory provision under Section 12
which precedes the reference order by the government. Therefore, further question arises
whether government can make a reference order during the pendency of conciliatory
proceedings. Lastly, the principle of res judicata, which is widely prevalent in civil jurisdiction,
do not apply strictly to the industrial adjudication nor to the government order due to their
administrative nature. There also becomes relevant, in cases
where the government has already rejected to make a reference once. Also, whether the period

3
Hochtief Gammon v. State of Odisha, 1975 (II) Lab. L.J. 418.

Industrial Adjudication| 9
of limitation shall apply to the government or not becomes a debatable topic due to the vast
ground o

Thus, we conclude that the author has rightfully pointed out the lacunae in the provisions of
adjudicatory mechanism under the Industrial Disputes Act and necessary amendments are
required in this field to restrict the unfettered powers of the government and maintain the
balance of probabilities. The excessive powers should be shifted to the employers and
employees. Workmen are the backbone of Industrial sector in India and restricting them of
their basic rights of employment does not act in the spirit of the welfare state. We need
representative unions to advance the interest of the workmen in Industrial disputes and the right
to move to the courts should be vested with the workmen. The idea should be to bring about
peace and harmony for the smooth functioning of industries. Proper and just representation is
needed to ensure equality and if some amendments are brought for good of the workmen they
must be accepted as they are, because in the end welfare of the workmen should be the ulterior
aim of legislative, executive and judiciary.

Industrial Adjudication| 10
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED IN DISSENT

THAT THE GOVERNMENT S POWER UNDER SECTION 10 DOESN T NEED ANY CHANGES

State intervention in industrial relations is essentially a modern development. The concern of

state in matters relating to labour is a product of its obligations to protect the interest of
industrial community, while at the same time fostering economic growth in almost all
countries. The state has assumed powers to regulate labour relations in some degree or the other
The general starting of process of adjudication of industrial disputes under the ID Act is
initiated through a reference order issued by the related government to a labour court, industrial
tribunal or any national tribunal. The appropriate government has to comply however, with the
essentials enumerated in the Section 10(1). The first of which is the ascertainment of an

by the perusal of the documents given that whether there is an apprehension of dispute or an
existing dispute. After the same it has to look at the expediency of matter under the essentials
given under Section12 (5) of the act. After undergoing these compliances only, the Government
will allow or disallow the same.

Bank Em
question related to frame of reference as in the apprehension refers to whose apprehension is
referred to here? Apart from that several questions related to general import of the phrase were

with a gamut of questions left unanswered.

These questions were however discussed in the case of State of Madras v C.P. Sarathy. In the
instant case a complaint was lodged against a managing director of a theatre due to non-
compliance of an earlier award made by an industrial tribunal. The MD contended that the

employer was that the government had no jurisdiction a reference as there was no dispute
between the management and its workers and therefore the reference insofar as it related to the
management was ultra vires. The Court, apart from holding on to the facts of the case that there

Industrial Adjudication| 11
was an industrial dispute in existence between management and employees in the cinema
industry as a whole, the court further observed that it was not essential that the dispute must
actually arise between a particular management and its employees ; it could very well be an
apprehended dispute between the two and in that situation the government might without a
close examination of the conditions in each individual establishment refer the dispute for
industrial adjudication as existing in the entire industry.

The Court also upon the fact that the Government will have to justify the reasons entailed that

be negated that that in making a reference S. 10(1) the Government is doing an administrative
act and the it has to form an opinion as to the factual existence of an disputeas a preliminary
step to the discharge of its function does it any the less administrative in character. The Court
cannot, canvass the order of reference closely to see if there was any material Government to
support its conclusion, as if it was a judicial determination.

2. THAT THE POWER CONFERRED UPON THE TRIBUNAL IS ADEQUATE AND DOES NOT NEED
ANY REVISION UNDER ANY SPECIALISED APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND THAT ANY APPEAL
SHOULD DIRECTLY LIE TO THE HC OR SC

In the landmark judgement of A.k.Kraipak vs UOI it was said that the dividing line between an
administrative and a quasi-judicial order is thin and is being gradually obliterated. For
determining whether a power is administrative or quasi-judicial, one has to look to the nature
of the power that is conferred on an authority, framework of the law conferring that power,
consequences ensuing from the exercise of that power and manner in which that power is
expected to be exercised. It is to be understood that too much bearing on a quasi-judicial
authority would render miscarriage of justice and that a harmonious construction has to be
formed between administrative quasi-
ribunal.
The executive has to reach its decisions by taking in to account relevant considerations. They
should not refuse to consider matters, nor should they take into account wholly irrelevant or
matters. They should not misdirect themselves on a point of such a decision would be lawful.
The courts have power to see executive acts lawfully. It is no answer to the exercise of that
power that the executive acted bona fide nor that it has bestowed painstaking consideration. It
cannot avoid scrutiny and if it does not reasons, the courts can direct it to reconsider the matter
in relevant matters though the propriety, adequacy or satisfactory of those reasons may not be
open to judicial review. In the landmark case of Hochtief Gammon vs Union of India that even

Industrial Adjudication| 12
if the opinion of the government is bona fide and formed after painstaking consideration, it
cannot avoid scrutiny by the court. Therefore it has to be understood that a harmonious
construction between Kraipak and Hochtief is required so that the initial stages of dispute is
resolved in a quasi-administrative body however the same should be referred to HC or SC in
appellate cases in order to not escape the purview of judicial review.

SUGGESTIONS
Simplification of Procedures: The procedures to be adopted by the adjudicatory
authorities shall be simplified so as to make the adjudication proceedings informal, less
technical and expeditious. For simplification of procedures certain measures shall be
adopted such as: i) use of summary trial procedures in appropriate cases, ii) collection of
evidence through affidavits and counter affidavits instead of oral evidence may be done in
appropriate cases, iii) the adjudicatory authorities shall be given flexibility in the matter of
procedures to be followed and the Rules providing for the civil court procedures shall be
discarded, iv) the time limits for different stages of proceedings shall be observed without
any deviation, v) oral arguments shall be limited and written arguments shall be made
compulsory.

Establishment of more number of Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals: At present

the territorial jurisdiction of Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals spreads over a vast
area and which is causing inconvenience to the parties and also consuming lot of court time
in conducting sittings at different places. Apart from this, looking at the huge pendency of
cases in different L.Cs/ I.Trs. in Karnataka in general and at Hubli in particular, to clear of
the pendency more number of L.Cs/I.Trs. should be established for speedy disposal of
cases.

Filling of Vacancies of P.O.s in Time: The P.O.s are to be posted immediately whenever
it becomes vacant due to transfer or retirement etc., of P.O.s of L.Cs / I.Trs. If the vacancies
are not filled in time it leads to unnecessary burden on the incharge court and also results
in delay in adjudication ofthe cases of not only vacant court but also the work of incharge
court. Removal of System of Publication of Awards: At present the awards passed by LCS/
I.Trs. are required to be published in the official Gazette. Though, they are required to be
published within thirty days from the date ofreceipt of award from the LC/I.Tr., the

Industrial Adjudication| 13
appropriate Government is making unnecessary delay in publication of awards and the
award becomes enforceable only after expiry of thirty days from the date of publication in
the Gazette. This is causing unnecessary delay in completion of the adjudication process
and the poor workmen shall have to wait for many more months for realisation of fruits
under the award. Therefore, the award shall be pronounced in the open court as it is done
in case of civil courts and shall become enforceable after expiry of 30 days from the date
of pronouncement of the award. It helps to avoid unnecessary delay in completion of
adjudication process and realisation of benefits under the award. To overcome the delay in
publication of awards and its enforceability the following amendment may be made to sec.
17 and sec 17A of I.D.Act.

Industrial Adjudication| 14
 CASE LAWS

CASE 1:
PRABHAKAR v. JOINT DIRECTOR, SERICULTURE DEPT. & ANR.4
Facts: The service of a clerk (petitioner) was terminated on April 1, 1985. Till 1999, the
petitioner did not approach any judicial authority to challenge his termination. In 1999, the
petitioner approached the appropriate Government alleging that his termination was in
violation of Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The matter was referred to the Labour
Court by the appropriate Government. Consequently, the labour court decided in favour of the
petitioner and declared the termination as invalid and ordered his reinstatement. Subsequently,
the single judge and later on, the division bench also dismissed the appeal of the Management.
Henceforth, a Special Leave Petition was filed by the Management before the Hon
Court of India.

Issue: Whether reference of such belated claim was appropriate on the part of Government?
Whether the dispute can still be treated as surviving?

Held: The apex Court rejected the Petition as the law of limitation does not apply to industrial
disputes and neither to the proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act. The word at any
time in Section 10 would support that there is no period of limitation in making an order of
reference.

To decide upon the aforesaid issue, the Court proceeded to deal with the powers of appropriate
government under Section 10 of the Act in referring or refusing to refer the dispute for
adjudication. The Court took support of the CP Sarathy case, to hold that the function of
appropriate government is an administrative function and not a judicial or quais-judicial act.
The satisfaction that industrial dispute is apprehended is a condition precedent to the order of
reference The government was entitled to go into the question whether industrial dispute
exists or is apprehended and it will only be subjective satisfaction on the basis of material on
records and being an administrative order no lis is involved.

Ratio: When the es a reference of an industrial dispute for

adjudication, it does not decide any question of fact or law. Although not barred by law of
limitation, when the appropriate government makes a reference under Section 10, at any

4
Prabhakar v. Joint Director, Sericulture Department & Anr., 2015 SCC OnLine SC 1055.

Industrial Adjudication| 15
time it has to keep in mind as to whether the dispute is still existing or live dispute and has
not become a stale claim, if that so, reference can be refused. The limitation period for making
reference is co-extensive with the existence of the dispute. The policy of industrial adjudication
is that very encouraged unless there are satisfactory explanation for delay. The adequacy of the
material on which the reference opinion was based is beyond the pale of judicial scrutiny.
However, the condition precedent to the formation of such opinion, that there should be an
existing or apprehended industrial dispute is imperative and the recitals of such apprehension
cannot preclude the Court to exercise its power of judicial review and determine whether in
fact the Government applied its mind in coming to the conclusion. Likewise, the refusal from
the Government also brings the act to the scope of judicial review.

Industrial Adjudication| 16
 CASE 2:
RAGHUBIR SINGH v. GENERAL MANAGER, HARYANA ROADWAYS, HISSAR5
Facts: A conductor with the Haryana Roadways (the appellant), was charged with
misappropriation of the amount collected from tickets. Upon being released on bail, he was
assured of his reinstatement on acquittal. However, he was informed upon acquittal that his
services were terminated w.e.f. 1994. On failure of conciliatory proceedings, the industrial
dispute was referred to the labour court. The Court declared the termination as illegal and
ordered for reinstatement fro, the date of issuance of demand notice. On appeal, the High Court
set aside the award and remanded the labour court for fresh adjudication in light of Article
311(2)(b) of the Constitution.

The labour court passed an order against the appellant on the ground of the reference to the
dispute being time-barred. This was challenged and was negated by both the Single and
Division bench. Henceforth, a petition was filed before the Hon

Issue: Whether the question of limitation is applicable to the reference of the existing industrial
dispute that would be made by the State Government either to the Labour Court or Industrial
Tribunal for adjudication at the instance of the appellant?

Held: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and stated the termination being validated due to
time-barred by limitation is erroneous and should be set aside. Further the workmen cannot be
denied to seek relief only on the ground of delay in raising the dispute.

It was held that the reference of the industrial dispute was made within reasonable time,
considering the circumstance in which the workman was placed. Firstly, as there was a criminal
charge pending against him, secondly, the respondent had assured the workman that would be
reinstated after his acquittal. Moreover, it is reasonable to adjudicate the industrial dispute in
spite of the delay in raising and referring the matter, since there is no mention of any loss or
unavailability of material evidence due to the delay. The Labour Court on an erroneous
assumption of law framed the additional issue regarding the limitation ignoring the settled legal
position. Not adjudicating the existing industrial dispute on merits between the parties referred
to it may lead to disruption of industrial peace and harmony, which is the foremost important
aspect in indust5ria jurisprudence as the same would affect the public interest at large.

5
Raghubir Singh v. General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Hissar, 2014 SCC OnLine SC 669

Industrial Adjudication| 17
Labour Court has failed to exercise its statutory power coupled with duty by not going into the
merits of the case and adjudicating the points of disputes referred to it. Therefore, it is fit to
exercise the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 136.

Ratio: Appropriate Government exercises its statutory powers under Section 10 of the Act,
wherein they can refer industrial dispute to the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal.
Limitation Act has no application to reference made by the Government to the Labour Courts
for adjudication of existing industrial disputes. Besides, disputes could be adjudicated upon
despite delay since there was no loss or unavailability of evidence due to the delay. In the given
case, Labour Court erred by not going into the merits of the case and failed to exercise its
statutory powers. Moreover, with significance to reference, workmen cannot be denied relief
on the grounds of delay in raising dispute. In such cases, Labour Courts should accordingly
mould the reliefs.

Industrial Adjudication| 18
 CASE 3:
OFFICER IN CHARGE v. RAM BAI6
Facts: The present petition is filed by the petitioner against an order date 04.07.2014, wherein
the Labour Court has awarded a compensation of INR 1 lakh in lieu of reinstatement after
holding that the termination of the respondent was in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial
Disputes Act 1947. The appropriate Government vide order dated 14.7.2005 in exercise of
powers under Section 10(1) of the I.D. Act 1947 referred the dispute to the labour court for
adjudication that whether the termination of service of respondent, Smt. Ram Bai was proper
or not and what relief she was entitled for.

Before the Labour Court the respondent pleaded that she was engaged as labour in the year of
1974 and her services were terminated in the year of 1992 without payment of any retrenchment
compensation by an oral order. Before termination of her services, no notice was issued to her
neither any enquiry was conducted by the authority. The petitioner pleaded that the respondent
did not work for 240 days in a calendar year and the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act were
not applicable in the establishment of the petitioner.

The petitioner contended that no relief can be granted in favour of the respondent because the
dispute was raised after a period of twelve years, hence the appropriate Government has
committed an illegality in referring the dispute.

Issue: Whether the Government has erred in referring the dispute to the Labour Court
exercising its

Held: The High Court held that the Labour Court was justified in passing the proper award and
therefore the present petition was dismissed. The Court looked upto the full bench judgement
of the High Court in the case of Dy. C.M.E./Sub, Area-Manager Ramnagar, R.O. Secl, Shahdol
v. Union of India and Others7, wherein the Bench held that belated claims giving rise to an
industrial dispute can be referred by the appropriate Government under section 10(1) of the
Act if the appropriate Government finds that the industrial dispute exists at the time of making
the reference notwithstanding the fact that the claim is belated and such an order passed by the
appropriate Government under section 10(1) of the Act cannot be interfered with by the High
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution on the ground that the reference is incompetent or

6
Officer In Charge v. Ram Bai, MANU/MP/0951/2015.
7
Dy. C.M.E./Sub, Area-Manager Ramnagar, R.O. Secl, Shahdol v. Union of India and Others,
MANU/MP/0475/2007.

Industrial Adjudication| 19
without jurisdiction. But at the same time, the appropriate Government while exercising its
wide discretion under sections 10(1) and 12(5) of the Act may refused to refer an industrial
dispute which exists but which has become stale if it is not expedient to refer the same as this
would be a relevant circumstance while examining the question whether a case for reference is
made out or not for industrial adjudication.

In the present case, the petitioner did not challenge the aforesaid reference in any independent
writ petition. The petitioner participated before the labour court and when the award was passed
and order for payment of compensation in favour of the respondent is given, then the petitioner
challenged the award and also raised the ground that the appropriate Government has
committed an error in making the reference.

Ratio:

Appropriate Government has power and authority to make a reference even though there was
a delay and in the present case the petitioner participated before the labour court, hence the
petitioner cannot claim that the reference made by the appropriate Government was not proper
on the principle acquisition and its conduct.

Industrial Adjudication| 20
 CRITICAL ANALYSIS

Section 10(1) which gives the power to Government to refer a dispute to a Board or a Court
for inquiry of a Tribunal if it is of opinion that any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended.
The discretion conferred upon Government in Section 10(1) is in no way qualified or limited.

In the same piece of legislation the Legislature has advisedly used different language in Section
10(1), in the proviso to Section 10(1), & in Section 12(5) & in our opinion mere is good reason
& good principle why this different language is used. When Government is dealing with a
dispute relating to a public utility service various considerations of public policy arise and it is
only the Government that is competent to decide whether a reference should be made or not,

ubtedly a question of policy which the Court cannot inquire into, and
therefore if the Government were to say with regard to a public utility service that it is
inexpedient to make a reference it would be the end of the matter. But when we come to Section
12(5) where there is conciliation proceeding, where there is a report and where an obligation
is cast upon Government to peruse a report, to give such wide discretion to Government. It
limited its discretion to its satisfaction that there was no case for a reference.

It is only where the test of subjective satisfaction of the appropriate Government is satisfied
that the reference can be made. Thus, it is clear that the appropriate Government is given an
important voice in the matter of permitting industrial disputes to seek adjudication by reference
to the industrial tribunal.

Thus, so far as discretion of the Government to exercise its power of referring an industrial
dispute is concerned it is very wide under S. 10(1) but is limited under the second proviso to
S. 10(1). Section 10(2) deals with a case where the Government has to refer an industrial
dispute and has no discretion in the matter.

It is common ground that a writ for mandamus would lie against the Government if the order
passed by it under Sec. 10(1) is for instance contrary to the provisions of Section 10(1)(a) to
(d) in the matter of selecting the appropriate authority; it is also common ground that in refusing
to make a reference under Section 12(5) if Government does not record and communicate to
the parties concerned its reasons therefor a writ of mandamus would lie.

The order passed by the Government under S. 12(5) may be an administrative order and the
reasons recorded by it may not be justiciable in the sense that their propriety, adequacy or

Industrial Adjudication| 21
satisfactory character may not be open to judicial scrutiny; in that sense it would be correct to
say that the court hearing a petition for mandamus is not sitting in appeal over the decision of
the Government; nevertheless if the court is satisfied that the reasons given by the Government
for refusing to make a reference are extraneous and not germane then the court can issue, and
would be justified in issuing, a writ of mandamus even in respect of such an administrative
order. The discretion of the Government under Section 10 has to be exercised by the
Government bona fide and on a consideration of relevant and material facts set out in Section
10.

Every administrative determination must be based on grounds relevant and germane to the
exercise of power; if the administrative determination is based on the irrelevant, extraneous or
grounds not germane to the exercise of power it is liable to be questioned in exercise of the
power of judicial review.

Law can be summarized that there is no prescribed time limit for the appropriate Government
to exercise its powers under Section 10 of the Act. It is more so in view of the language used,
namely, if any i

workman cannot be said to be delayed or suffering from a lapse when law does not prescribe
any period of limitation for raising a dispute under Section 10 of the Act. The real test for
making a reference is whether at the time of the reference dispute exists or not and when it is
made it is presumed that the State Government is satisfied with the ingredients of the provision,
hence the Labour Court cannot go behind the reference.

Industrial Adjudication| 22