JlAM AVTAR SHARMA & ORS. ETC. v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR. ETC.

JlAM AVTAR SHARMA & ORS. ETC.

v. B STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR. ETC.

Aprilll, 1985

(D.A. DESAI AND RANGANATH MISRA, JJ.J c Constitution of India, Art.32 and 226-Refusa/ by appropriate Government fo refer industrial dispute to lndustrial Tribuna/flahour Court 11/s, JO, J.D.Act- Function of Government u/s. 10 - Whether administralative or Quasi-Judicial -When a writ of mandamus can be issued.

D Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, s. JO-Reference-Exercise of power by Govt. to refer an industrial dispute to inJr,striaf Tribunal Labour Court-Whe- • ther a writ can be issued against refusal of Govern1nent to refer the dispute.

Administrative Law-Function of f!overntnent ufs. JO J.D. Act to refer a dispute-Whether admini'stratfre or quasi~judr'cial. E. Jn a11 the writ petitions, the petitioners were dismissed from service on the grotfnd of miscoilduct after an enquiry held against each of thrm. They raised an industrial dispute contending that the orders imposing punishment of removal were illegal and invalid. The conciliation proceedtngs also failed. 1he State Government in W.Ps. Nos. 16226-29 of 1984 and the Central Government in W.P. No. 16418 of 1984 passed identical orders in each case F refusing to make a reference to the Tribunal u/s. 10(1) 9f the Industrial Disputes Act t9t7 holding that the punishment was imposed on the peti- tioners after an enquiry has been held in accoi-dance with th¢ rules and that the removal from service is neither malafide nor unjustified and therefore it was not a fit cai;e for making the refer~n.::~. H'!ncc th-~s~ writ petitions.

Allowing the oetions, G lJELD: 1.(i) In making a referl!n.;e u/;;. 10([) the appropriate govern- ment performs an administrative act and not a judicial or qu:oisi-judicial act and the fact that it has to f0rm an opinion as to the factual e.tistence of an industrial dispute as a preliininary step to the discharge of it<; function do·es not make it ftnY the less administrative in character. Assuming that making or refusing 11 to make a reference under Soc. 10(1) is a quasi.judicial function, there is

RAM AVTAR V. HARYANA 687 )

bound to be a conflict of jurisdiction if the reference is ultimately made. A A quasi-judicial function is to some extent an adjudicatory function in a tis bet.ween two contending parties. The Government as an umpire, assuming that it is performing a qu1'>i-judicial function when it proceeds to make _a reference, would imply that the quasi-judicial determination of !is prima facie shows: that one who raised th~ di~pute has established merits of the dispute. 'rhe inference necessarily follows from the assumption that the function per- formed under Sec. 10(1) is a quasi-judicial function. Now by exercising B power under Sec. 10, a reference is made to a Tribunal for adjudication and the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that there was no merit in the dispute, prima facie a conflict of jurisdiction may emerge. Therefore, the view that while exercising power under sec. JC(l) the fu'lction performed by the appro- priate Government is an administrative function and not a judicial or qu!lsi- judic~al function is beyond the pale of controversy. [692F-H; 693A·CJ c State of Madras v. C.P. Saraihy & · Anr. (1953] S.C. R. 335 at 347 Western India Match Co. Ltd. v. Western India Match Co. Workers Union & . Ors. [1970] 2 SCR' 370 ~and Sa1nbu Nath Goyal v. Bank of Baroda, Jul/u11dur (1978] 2 SCR 793 followed.

(2) Every administrative determination must be based on grounds re- D levant and germace to the exercise of power. If the adminhtrative determina- tion is based on the irrelevant, extraneous or grounds not germane to the exereise of power it is liable to be questioned in exercise of the power of judicial review. In such a situation the court would bejustified in issuing a writ of mandamus even in respect of an administrative order. Maybe, the court may not issue writ of mandamus, directing the Government to make a reference but the cour! can after examining the reasons given by the appropriate Government for refu"sin2 to make a reference come to a conclu- sion that they are irrelevant. extraneous or not germane to the determina~ tion and then can direct the Government to reconsider the matter. [693F-H; 694A]

(3) In the instaJ;lt cases, the workmen questioned the_legality and vali- dity of the enquiry which aspect the Tribunal in a quasi.judicial determination was required to examine. A bare statement. that -a domestic enquiry was held in which charges were held to be proved, if it is considered sufficient for not exercising power of making a reference under Sec. 10(1), almost all cases of termination of services cannot go before· the Tribunal. And it would render Sec. 2A of the Act denuded of all its content and meaning. The reasons given by the appropriate. Govenment in each case would show that the Government examined the relevant papers of enquiry and the Government was satisfied that it was legally valid an that there was sufficient and adequate evidence to bold ·the charges proved. It ~ould further appear that the appropriate Government in each case was satisfied that the enquiry was not biased against the workmen and the punishment was commensurate with the· gravity of the misconduct charged.. All these_ relevant and vital aspects have to be examined b{' the Industrial Tribunal while adjudicating upon the reference made to it. H

p. 688 Copy page pinpoint

A ln other words, the reasons given by the Government would tantamount to adjudic::ition which is impermissible, Tbat i~ the function of the Trjbuilat and the Government cannot arrogate to itself th:H function. Therefore if the groUnds on which or the reasons for which the Government deciiaed to make a reference under Sec, 10 are irrelevant.extraneous or not germane to the determination, it is well .settled that the party aggrieved thereby would be entitled to move the Court for a writ of mandamus. Accordingly all the wdt peti- tions nre allowed directing the appropriate government in each case to re- consider its decision and to exercise power u/s. 10 on relevant and coi1sidcra- B tions germane to the decision. In other words a clear case for reference uss. 10(1) in each case is made out. [694G-H;695A-D; 695A; 696-ABl

State of Bombay v. K.P. Krishnan & Ors. [1971] l SCR 227 at 243 and · Bombay Union of Journalists & Ors. v, State of Bombay & Anr., (1964] 6 SCR , ~ '. 22 sclicd upon, c ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 16226·f9 and 16418 of 1984.

Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

0 A. K. Goel for the Petitioners.

llarbans Lal, Ashok Grover, 0. P. Sharma, R.N. Poddar and C. V. Subba Rao for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was 1.LI ivcred by E

DESAI, J. In this group of writ petitions, the only point of law hanvasscd is whether the appropriate Government was justified in declining to make a reference of an industrial dispute ari;sing out of the termination of service of each of the petitioners for adjudi- ) - F catinn to Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court under Sec. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Writ p, titian Nos. 16256-29/84 : Four petitioners were the workmen employed by the second respondent Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Production Ltd. ('employer' for short). The G employ.er on April 11, 1983 issued charge-sheet in identical terms to all the four petitioners calling up.on them to show cause within 48 hours of the receipt of the charge-sheet as to why suitabk disciplinary aclion should not be taken against each of them. The charge-sheet referred to an incident that occurred on J Ith April, 1983 at 8.)5 A.M. between two groups of workers prc- H sutuably owing loyalty to rival unions. The misconduct alle~ed

RA\! AVTAR v. HARYANA (Desai, J.) 689

A against each petitioner was the one set out in Standing Order 20 (XIV) and 20(XXVJ of the Certified Standing Orders of the cmp· loyer. Briefly stated, the charges were that the petitioners were guilty of fighting or riotous or disorderly behaviour as also man- handling beating etc. other workmen of the Company which acts were subversive of the discipline expected of the workmen of the Com- 8 pany. It is alleged that di•ciplinary enquiry followed and the enquiry officer_ submitted his report holding each of the petitioners guilty of the misconduct imputed against him. The Assistant Vice-President of the employer Company, after having gone through the report submitted by the enquiry officer and after perusal' of the record of proceedings of enquiry and the connected documents concurred with c -~ the findings recorded and reported by the enquiry officer holding the petitioners guilty of charges. After taking into consideration Various relevant circumstances including the past record of the workmen, each of the petitione·rs was dismissed from the employ- ment of the employer. It may be mentioned that during the pen- dency of the enquiry, all the petitioners had been put under suspen- D sion and while dismissing the petitioners, the period of suspension was treated as absence without leave. The petitioners raised an industrial dispute as per notice dated May i2, 1984 calling upon the employer to reinstate them wi\h backwages and treat them in ser~ vice without a break. Copies of the notice were· also s~rved upon E the authorities in the Labour Department of the Haryana Govern - ment. The Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer held conciliation pro- ceedings and submitted a failure report on June 30, 1984. The second respondent, the State of Haryana, after taking into consi- deration the report of the Concilation Officer, by its order dated September l, J984 declined to make a reference on the ground that F 'the Goverument does not consider -the case to be fit for reference -~- for adjudication to the Tribuna! as it has been learnt that the ser- vices,of the.petitioners were terminated only after charges against them were proved in a domestic enquiry.' T~e present writ petition is filed questioning the correctness and validity of this order. G Writ Petition No. 16418/84: Petitioner S.K. ·Sharma was, at the relevant time, employed as Electrical Fitter in tb'e Diesel Shed at Tuglakabad. He was Assistant Secretary of the Uttar Railway Karamchari Union, Diesel Shed Branch. He was also a member~ of the Canteen Committee. On August 2, 1981 th·e petitioner went to the Canteen, according to him, in his capacity as the member· of H

690 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ti 985] 3 s.c.R. A the Canteen Committee, to enquire about the working of the Can- teen. On Shri Gurbachan Singh, a Foreman, marked the petitio.ner absent from duty and made an entry indicating that the petitioner had absented himself from duty and gave a direction that the peti- tioner should not be allowed to join duty without his permission. B On the next day i.e. August 3, 1981, when the petitioner reported for duty, token was not issued to him by the Time Keeper and he was informed that the token could not be issued to him until he brought a slip from Foreman Shri Gurbachan Singh. As the latter was not on duty on that day, petitioner and 10 other workmen .who too had been marked absent went to the residence of the Foreman c Shri Gurbachan Singh and enquired from him why they were not ~-· permitted to join duty, Shri Gurbachan Singh declined to have given any direction in this behalf and rebuked the petitioners for coming to his residence and accused them of misbehaviour. The petitioner and several others then approached the General Foreman who intervened and ordered the petitioner and others to join duty. D Gurbachan Singh thereafter lodged a complaint with the third res- pondent, Senior Divisional Mechanical Engineer, alleging that the petitioner has misbehaved with him and had attempted to man- handle him. On receipt of this report from Gurbacran Singh, Peti- tioner was placed under suspension on August 5, 1981, and was served with a charge-sheet. The petitioner denied the imputation. E A disciplinary enquiry followed. Surprisingly the enquiry officer, Senior Loco Inspector Shri Joginder Lal, did not record the state- ment of Shri Gurbachan Singh who was the prime witness but exa- mined two other witnesses who claimed to be the neighbourers of Shri Gurbachan Singh. The enquiry officer submitted his report dated F October 24, 1981 holding the petitioner guilty of mis-conduct. On } the basis of the report, 4th respondent exercising powers under Rule · 6 of the Raiway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 impo- sed punishment of removal from service on the petitioner. After an unsuccessful appeal to the Divisional Mechanical Engineer, the Uttar Railway Karamchari Union espoused the cause of the petitio- ner and raised an industrial dispute contending that the order impo- G sing punishment of removal from service was illegal and invalid. Central Labour Commissioner pursuant to the application from the Union dated may 29, 1982 held conciliation proceedings in which the respondents did not participate. Consequently, a failure report was submitted. The appropriate Government being the Central

RAM AVfAR v. HARYANA (Desai, J.) 691

Government as por its order dated Deeember 9, 1983 rejected the "A req\lest for a reference under Sec. JO of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on the ground 'that the penalty of removal from service was imposed on the workmen on the basis of enquiry held in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 and that the action of the management in R imposing the penalty of removal from service is neither malafide nor unjustified and therefore the appropriate Government . does not consider it necessary to refer the dispute to an Industrial Tribun-al for adjudication.' It is this order which is challenged in this writ petition.

The neat and narrow question of law raised in these two writ c petitions can be formulated thu.s : whether the appropriate Govern- ment in each case was justified in refusing to make a reference on the grounds mentioned in each order more specifically that as the punishment was imposed after an enquiry held in accordance with the rules and on the report of the enquiry officer, it is not a fit case D for making the reference. In other words, the question of Jaw is what are the parameters of power of the appropriate .Government under Sec. I 0 while making or refusing to make a reference to an industrial tribunal for adjudication of an industrial dispute.

The first question to be posed is whether while exercising the F power conferred by Sec. 10 to refer an industrial dispute to a Tribunal for adjudication, the appropriate Government is dischar- ging an administrative function or a quasi-judicial function. This is no more res integra. In State of Madras v. c~P. Sarathy & Anr .1) a Constitution Bench of this Court observed as under : E "But, it must be remembered that in making a refe- rence under Sec. 10(1) the Government is doing an admi- nistrative act and the fact that it has to form an opinion' as to the factual .existence of an indvstrial dispute as a pre- liminary step to the discharge of its function does not make it any the less administrative in charact~r. The Court can- G not, therefore, canvass the order of reference closely to see if there was any material before the Government to support its conclusion, as if it was a judicial or quasi-judicial deter- mination.''

(I) (1953] S.C.R. 334 at 347. Hff

6C)2 SUPREME CollRT ll.EPORTS (1985) 3 S.C.ll.·

A Explaining the ratio of the decision in Sara thy' s c.ise(1), iri Wes- tern fndia Match Co. Lid. v. Western fndia Match Co. Workers Union'& Ors.('> it was observed as under :

B "In the State of Madras v. C.P. Sarathy(')' this Court held on construction of s. 10(1) of the Central Act that the function of the appropriate Government thereunder is an administrative function. It was so held presumably because the Government cannot go into the merits of the dispute its function being only to r~fer such a dispute for ad- c judication so that the industrial relations between the e.mp- loyer and his employees may not continue to remain dis- turbed and the dispute may be resolved through a judicial process as speedily as possible." (Emphasis supplied)

D After referring to the earlier decisions on the subject in Sliambhu Nath Goel v. Bank of Baroda, Jullundurr'J it was hel.d that, in making a reference under Sec. 10(1), the appropriate Govern- ment is doing an administrative act and the fact that it has to form an opinion as to the factual existence of an industrial displi.te 'its a preliminary steo to the discharge of its function does not make it E any the less administrative in character. Thus, there is a consider- able body of the judicial opinion that while exercising power of making a reference under Sec. 10(1), the appropriate Government ·performs an administrative act and not a judicial or quasi-judicial act.

F The view that while e<ercising pJw<r under Sec. 10(1), the )- ~ Government performs administrative function c1n be supported by an alternative line of r~asoning, Ai;suming that inaking or refus- 0

ing to make a reference under Sec. lO(l) is a quasi-judicial function, there is bound to boa CJntlict of jurisdiction if the reference is G ultimately made. A qua>i·judicial function is to some extent an adjudicatory funi:tion in a !is.between two contcnling parties. The Government as an umpire, assuming that it is performing a quasi-

RAM AVTAR V. HARYANA (De.ai, J.) 693

judicial function when it proceeds to make a reference, would imply that the quasi-judicial determination of lis prima facie show that one who raised the dispute has established merits of the dispute. The inference necessarily follows from the assumption. that the function performed under Sec. 10(1) is a quasi-judicial function. Now by exercising power under Sec. 10, a reference is made to a Tribunal for adjudication and the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that there was no !merit in the dispute, Prima fade a conflict of jurisdiction may emerge. Therefore the view that while exercising power under Sec. 10(1) the function performed by the appro- priate Government is an administrative function and not a judicial or quasi-judicial function is beyond the pale of contro- versy. c

Now if the Government performs an administrative act while either making or refusing to make a reference under Sec. 10(1), it cannot delve into the merits of the dispute and take upon itself the determination of lis. That would certainly be in excess of the D power conferred by Sec. 10. Section 10 requires the appropriate Government to be satisfied that an industrial dispute exists or is apprehended. This may permit the appropriate Government to determine prima facie whether an industrial dispute exists or the claim is frivolous or bogus or put forth for extraneous and irrcle- E v:fit reasons not for justice or industrial peace and harmony. Every administrative determination must be based on grounds relevant and germane to tile exercise of power. If the admini~trative deter- mination is based on the irrelevant, extraneous or grounds not germane to the exercise of power it i> liable to be questioned in exercise of the power of judicial review. In State of Bombay v. ··tf· K. P. Krishnan and Ors.l') it was hcld1that a writ of mandamus would F lie against the Government if the order passed by it under Sec. 10(1) is based or induccJ by reasons as given by the Government are extraneous, irrelevant and not germane to the determination. In Sucl1 a situation the Court would be justified in issuing a writ of mandamus even in respect of an administrative order. Maybe, the Court may not issue writ of mandamus, directing the Government to make a reference but the Court can after examining the reasons given by the approriate Government for refusing to make a refernce

11961) 1SCR227 at 243. H

694 SUPIIBME COURT REPORTS (1985) 3 $.C.R. A come to a conclusion that they are irrelevant, extraneous or not germane to the determination and then can direct the Government to reconsider the matter. This legal position appears to be beyond the pale of controversy. B Accordingly, it is necessary to examine the reasons giveµ by the Government to ascertain whether the determination of the Government was based on relevant considerations or irrelevant, extraneous or considerations not germane to the determination.

c Re: Writ Petition Nos. 16226-29/84: The reasons assigned by the Government for refusing to make a reference are to be called out from the letter Annexure 'A' dated September 1, 1984 sent by the Joint Secretary, Haryana Government, Labour Department to the petitioners. It is stated in the letter that: "the Govt. does not con- sider your case to be fit for reference for adjudication, to the Tri- 0 bunal as it has been learnt that your services were terminated only after charges against you were proved in a domestic enquiry." The assumption underlying the reasons assigned by the Government are that the enquiry was consistent with the rules and the standing orders, that it was fair and just and that there was unbiased deter- mination and the punishment was commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct. The last aspect has assumed considerable im- portance after the introduction of Section 11 A in the lndusfrial Disputes Act by Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1971 with effect from December 15, 1971., It confers power on the Tribunal not only to examine the order of discharge or dismissal on merits as also to determine whether the punishment was commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct charged. In other words, Sec. ilA confers power on the Tribunal/Labour Court to examine tbe case of the workmen whose service has been terminated either by discharge or dismissal qualitatively in the matter of nature of enquiry and quantitatively in the matter of adequacy or otherwise of punishment. The workmen questfoned the legality and validity of the enquiry which aspect the Tribunal in a quasi-judicial deter- mination was required to examine. A bare statement that a domes- tic enquiry was held in which charges were held to be proved, if it is considered sufficient for not exercising power of making a refe- rence under Sec. 10(1), almost all cases of termination of services cannot go before the Tribunal. And it would render Sec. 2A of

RAM AVTARV. HARYANA (Desai, J.) 695 ,.I. the Act denuded of all its conient and meaning. Th'e reasons given by the Government would show that the)Government examine_d the relevant papers of enquiry and the Government was satisfied that it was legally valid and that there was sufficient and adequate ·eviden_9e ·to hold the charges ·proved. It would further· appear that the Government was satisfied that the enquiry wasnot biased against n the Workmen and the punishment was commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct charged. All these relevant and vital aspects have to be examined by the Industrial Tribunal while adjudicating upon the reference made to it. In other words, the reasons given by the . Government ·would tantamount to adjudication which ·is· impermis- sible. That is the funC!ion Of the Tribunal and the Government c cannot arrogate to itself that function. Therefore if the grounds on "hich or the reasons for which the Government declined to make a reference under Sec. 10 aie irrelevant, extraneous or not germane to the determination, it is well settled that the party aggrieved there- by would be entitled to move the Court for a writ of mandamus. (See Bombay Union of Journalists & Ors. v. The State of Bombay-& •ID Anr.(1) It is equally well-settled that where the Government p~r­ ports to give reasons which tantamount to adjudication and refuses to make a reference, the appropriate Government could' be said to have acted on extra 1eom, irrelevant grounds or grounds not ger- mane to the determination and a writ of m mdamus would lie calling upon the Government to reconsider it.; decision. In this case a clear case for grant of writ of mandamus is made out. Writ Petition No. 16418/84: !he appropriate Government being the Central GJVernment in this case declined to make a re- ference as per its order dated December 9, 1983 in which it is stated that 'the action of the management in imposing on the workmen penalty of removal from service on the basis. of an enquiry and in. accordance with the procedure laid down .in the Railway Servanis (Discipline & Appeal)·Rules, 1968 is neither malafide nor unjustified. The appropriate Government does not consider it necessary to refer the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication.' Ex facie it would appear that the Government acted on extraneous and irre- levant. considerations and the reasons hereinbefore mentioned will mutatis murandfr apply in respect of present order of the Govern- ment under challenge. Therefore for the same reasons, a writ of mandamus must be issued.

\!) [1964] 6 S.C.R. 22. II

696 SUPREME COURT RBPORfS [I %5] 3 S.C.R. ,l, A Accordingly all the writ petitions are allowed and the rule is made absolute in each case. Let a writ of mandamus be issued directing the appropriate Government in each case namely the State of Haryana in the first mentioned group of petitions and the Central Government in the second petition to reconsider its decision and to exercise power under Sec. 10 on relevant and considerations ger- B mane to the decision. In other words, a clear case of reference .> under Sec. 10(1) in each case is made out. We order accordingly.

Respondent No. 2, Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Products Limited in WP Nos. 16226-29 of 1984 shall pay the costs which is quantified at Rs. 2,000/- to the petitioners within four weeks from c today. There will be no order as to costs in WP No. 16418/84.

D M.L.A. · Petitivn'l a/loll'ed.