Orissa High Court
Krishna Chandra Rout vs Steel Authority Of India Ltd. And Ors. on 6 November, 1992
Equivalent citations: (1994)IILLJ933ORI, 1993(I)OLR343
Author: A. Pasayat
Bench: A. Pasayat
JUDGMENT A. Pasayat, J.
1. The pivotal point round which this writ application revolves is whether the actual date of birth of the petitioner is July 10, 1924 or August 15, 1929. A dispute of this nature is not to be adjudicated in a writ application. (See Laxman Swain v. Managing Director, Steel Authority of India Limited, Rourkela and Anr.: 60(1985)C.L.T.10.
2. However, we find that the petitioner had made a grievance before the authorities under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short, the 'Act'). A failure report was submitted by the Assistant Labour Officer-cum-Conciliation Officer, Rourkela. On consideration of the same, the State Government refused to refer the matter for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal on the ground that the action of the management did not appear to be unjustified. The course adopted by the State Government appears to be untenable in law. As observed by the Apex Court in the case of The M.P. Irrigation Karmachari Sangh v. State of M.P. and Anr. (1985-I-LLJ-519) while conceding a very limited jurisdiction to the State Government to examine patent frivolousness of the demands, it is to be understood, as a rule, that adjudication of demands by workman should be left to be decided by the Tribunal.
3. Section 10 of the Act permits appropriate Government to determine whether dispute "exists or is apprehended" and then refer it for adjudication on merits. There is a marked distinction between reference and adjudication. The former is to be done by the appropriate Government while the latter is to be done by the Tribunal. When a reference is rejected on the specious plea that the Government was satisfied that the action of the management did not appear to be unjustified, the Government can be said to have usurped the power of adjudication. The same has to be done by a quasi-judicial Tribunal. There may be exceptional cases where the State Government may on a proper examination of the demand, come to a conclusion that the demands are either perverse or frivolous and do not merit a reference. The attempt of the Government should not be to make a detailed examination of the demand to come to a conclusion whether ultimately the workman would succeed in the reference or not. Only where the case falls to a category of perversity of frivolity, the Government should decline to make a reference. Prima facie the case at hand does not appear to belong to that category. Government appears to have prejudged the case, which it was not legally competent to do.
4. We, therefore, direct the State Government to re-consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with law within two months from the date of receipt of our order.
5. The writ application is accordingly disposed of. No costs.
S.K. Mohanty, J.
5. I agree.