Karnataka High Court
Karnataka Construction Corporation ... vs State Of Karnataka And Anr. on 19 February, 1988
Equivalent citations: (1994)IIILLJ318KANT
JUDGMENT M.P. Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.
1. The petitioner is a trade union. It is aggrieved by the endorsement issued by the State Government bearing the date 20th May. 1987, by which it has declared that a dispute sought to be referred for adjudication is not an industrial dispute at all.
2. The facts leading to the endorsement impugned in this writ petition may be stated in brief and they are as follows: The workers of the Karnataka Construction Corporation Limited are members of the petitioner-Union. Some of the workers who were the office-bearers were allowed to attend Union work in the matter of their participation in the proceedings before the Conciliation Board and the Labour Court or Tribunal or the Government as the case may be and their wages were being paid while on such work. That came to be withdrawn on 22nd June, 1985. Therefore, the workers raised a dispute and sought reference of the dispute to the appropriate Labour Court or the Tribunal resulting in the impugned endorsement.
3. The very fact that the permission has been withdrawn establishes the practice that obtained before i.e., permitting such of the workers who are office-bearer of the Union to attend to the Union work to represent the workers' grievances before the Conciliation Board or Courts or Tribunals. Therefore, one of their service conditions has been interfered with by the withdrawal. In that sense, the matter ought to have been referred to the appropriate Labour Court for its adjudication.
4. It is now well established by a catena of decisions of the Supreme Court that the Government is under an obligation to refer a dispute under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to the appropriate body for adjudication but itself may not decide whether the dispute raised is a dispute or not. There may be cases where the Government may not refer a dispute for adjudication for specific reason that it may not be in public interest or that it is so trivial, it does not call for adjudication by Tribunal or Court.
5. But, the impugned endorsement which is found at annexure J that the withdrawal of the concession to the office-bearers does not amount to a dispute amounts to adjudicating which power is not conferred on the State Government.
6. Therefore, the endorsement is quashed as being without the authority of law and the State Government will reconsider the matter in the light of this order.
7. This matter is disposed of at the stage of preliminary hearing after notice to respondents and after hearing the parties.