Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (2.61 seconds)Ram Avtar Sharma & Ors. Etc vs State Of Haryana And Anr. Etc on 11 April, 1985
It has been already stated that we had given one more
chance to the Government to reconsider the matter ,red the
Government after reconsideration has come to the same con-
clusion that the convoy drivers are not workmen of TELCO
thereby adjudicating the dispute itself. After having con-
sidered the facts and circumstances of the case and having
given our best consideration in the matter, we are of the
view that the dispute should be adjudicated by the Industri-
al Tribunal and, as the Government has persistently declined
to make a reference under section 10(1) of the Act, we think
we should direct the Government to make such a reference. In
several instances this Court had to direct the Government to
make a reference under section 10(1) when the Government
had declined to make such a reference and this Court was of
the view that such a reference should have been made. See
Sankari Cement Alai Thozhilalar Munnetra Sangam v. Govern-
ment of Tamil Nnadu, [1983] 1 LLJ 460; Ram Avtar Sharma v.
State of Haryana, [1985] 3 SCR 686; M.P. Irrigation Karam-
chari Sangh v. The State of M.P. [1985] 2 SCR 1019 and
Nirmal Singh v. State of Punjab, [1984] 2 LLJ396.
In the circumstances, we direct the State of Bihar to
make a reference under section 10(1) of the Act of the
dispute raised by the
809
Telco Convoy Drivers Mazdoor Sangh by its letter dated
October 16, 1986 addressed to the General Manager TELCO
(Annexure R-4/1 to the Special Leave Petition), to an appro-
priate Industrial Tribunal within one month from today.
The appeal is allowed and the judgment of the High Court
and the impugned orders are set aside. There will, however,
be no order as to costs.
M. P. Irrigation Karamchari Sangh vs The State Of M. P. And Anr on 27 February, 1985
It has been already stated that we had given one more
chance to the Government to reconsider the matter ,red the
Government after reconsideration has come to the same con-
clusion that the convoy drivers are not workmen of TELCO
thereby adjudicating the dispute itself. After having con-
sidered the facts and circumstances of the case and having
given our best consideration in the matter, we are of the
view that the dispute should be adjudicated by the Industri-
al Tribunal and, as the Government has persistently declined
to make a reference under section 10(1) of the Act, we think
we should direct the Government to make such a reference. In
several instances this Court had to direct the Government to
make a reference under section 10(1) when the Government
had declined to make such a reference and this Court was of
the view that such a reference should have been made. See
Sankari Cement Alai Thozhilalar Munnetra Sangam v. Govern-
ment of Tamil Nnadu, [1983] 1 LLJ 460; Ram Avtar Sharma v.
State of Haryana, [1985] 3 SCR 686; M.P. Irrigation Karam-
chari Sangh v. The State of M.P. [1985] 2 SCR 1019 and
Nirmal Singh v. State of Punjab, [1984] 2 LLJ396.
In the circumstances, we direct the State of Bihar to
make a reference under section 10(1) of the Act of the
dispute raised by the
809
Telco Convoy Drivers Mazdoor Sangh by its letter dated
October 16, 1986 addressed to the General Manager TELCO
(Annexure R-4/1 to the Special Leave Petition), to an appro-
priate Industrial Tribunal within one month from today.
The appeal is allowed and the judgment of the High Court
and the impugned orders are set aside. There will, however,
be no order as to costs.
Shambu Nath Goyal vs Bank Of Baroda, Jullundur on 2 February, 1978
Attractive though the contention is, we regret, we are
unable to accept the same. It is now well settled that,
while exercising power under section 10(1) of the Act, the
function of the appropriate Government is an administrative
function and not a judicial or quasijudicial function, and
that in performing this administrative function the Govern-
ment cannot delve into the merits of the dispute and take
upon itself the determination of the lis, which would cer-
tainly be in excess of the power conferred on it by section
10 of the Act. See Ram Avtar Sharma v. State of Haryana,
[1985] 3 SCR 686; M.P. Irrigation Kararnchari Sangh v. The
State of M.P., [1985] 2 SCR 1019 and Shambhu Nath Goyal v.
Bank of Baroda, Jullundur, [1978] 2 SCR 793.
Applying the principle laid down by this Court in the
above decisions, there can be no doubt that the Government
was not justified in deciding the dispute. Where, as in the
instant case, the dispute is
808
whether the person raising the dispute are workmen or not,
the same cannot be decided by the Government in exercise of
its administrative function under section 10(1) of the Act.
As has been held in M.P. Irrigation Karamchari Sangh's case
(supra), there may be exceptional cases in which 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. Further, the Govern-
ment should be very slow to attempt an examination of the
demand with a view to declining reference and Courts will
always be vigilant whenever the Government attempts to usurp
the powers of the Tribunal for adjudication of valid dis-
putes, and that to allow the Government to do so would be to
render section 10 and section 12(5) of the Act nugatory.
We are, therefore, of the view that the State Govern-
ment, which is the appropriate Government, was not justified
in adjudicating the dispute, namely, whether the convoy
drivers are workmen or employees of TELCO or not and, ac-
cordingly, the impugned orders of the Deputy Labour Commis-
sioner acting on behalf of the Government and that of the
Government itself cannot be sustained.
Section 12 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
1