RAMADAS D.B v. THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA

Judgment

3. THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, LABOUR DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDA, BANGALORE – 01. THE LABOUR COMMISSIONER KARMIKARA BHAVAN, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 029. GRAPHITE INDIA LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, VISVESVARAYA INDUSTRIAL AREA, WHITFIELD ROAD, BANGALROE – 560 048. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R-1 & R-2; SRI UDAYA HOLLA, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W SRI CHANDRASHEKAR S., ADVOCATE FOR R-3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 17.08.2012 VIDE ANNEXURE-F ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT AS THE SAME IS ILLEGAL AND CONSEQUENTLY ORDER TO REFER THE DISPUTE TO THE LABOUR COURT FOR ADJUDICATION. THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 21/02/2024 FOR ORDERS AND COMING FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: - 3 - O R D E R The workmen are before this Court, questioning the legality and correctness of the endorsement issued by respondent No.1, refusing to refer the matter to the Labour Court, forming an opinion that since the applicants-workmen have already opted for the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS), having received compensation amount, there is no employer and employee relationship and the reference to the Labour Court for adjudication was uncalled for.

2. Before adverting to the legality and correctness of function of respondent No.1, it is necessary to look into the settled proposition of law regarding the reference under Section 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (‘the ID Act’ for short).

3. Section 10 (1) as originally enacted, opened with the words ‘if any industrial disputes exists or is apprehended’ on the construction of those words in Section 10, as it - 4 - originally stood, the Madras High Court in the case of T.D. Ramayya Pantulu, IT Vs. Kutty and Rao (E) Ltd.,1 (Ramayya Pantulu) took the view that the decision of the Government referring the ‘industrial dispute’ was amenable to the judicial review and that reviewing Court could look into even the questions whether an ‘industrial dispute’ factually existed or was apprehended. The vagueness in penning the un-amended Section 10 (1) as noticed by the Madras High Court in Ramayya Pantulu’s case as stated supra with regard to ‘whose apprehension is referred to in the Act; the government’s or the parties’ or Tribunal’s or any one else’s? what is to happen if apprehension does not crystallize into an actual dispute before the Tribunal enters on its duties as regards the reference? Is the Tribunal bound even then to take note of the mere apprehension and proceed to decide a dispute notwithstanding the fact that the parties say that there is no dispute between them?” was also noted by the Apex Court in United Commercial Bank Ltd. Vs. UPBE 1 (1949) 1 LLJ 13 (Mad) (DB) - 5 - Union2 (United Commercial Bank) and thereafter, Section 10 (1) was amended by Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Ordinance, 1951 and the words substituted to “if any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended, the appropriate government by an order in writing, refer the dispute and the vagueness pointed out in the decision of Ramayya Pantulu and the Apex Court in the United Commercial Bank was removed by the legislation.

4. The Apex Court in the case of State of Madras Vs. C.P. Sarathy3 (C.P. Sarathy) on the construction of unamended Section 10 (1) stated the propositions, later in Newspapers Ltd. Vs. IT4 the Apex Court held that the words in the unamended Act implied the formation of ‘subjective opinion’ by the appropriate government, in the words ‘if any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended’ and in Western India Match Co. Vs. WIMCO Workers’ 2 (1952) 2 LLJ 577 3 AIR 1953 SC 53 4 (1957) 2 LLJ 1 - 6 - Union5 (WIMCO Workers) referring to the observations made in C.P. Sarathy’s case held that the function of the appropriate government to make a reference under Section 10 (1) is an administrative function. In another decision of the Apex Court, in Rohtas Industries Ltd. Vs. S.D. Agarwal6 (Rohtas Industries) held that the decision in C.P. Sarathy cannot be considered as an authority for the proposition that whenever the provision of law confers certain powers on an authority on its forming a certain opinion on basis of certain facts, the Courts are precluded from examining whether the relevant facts on the basis of which the opinion is formed had infact existed and a subtle distinction were drawn that ‘existence of circumstance but not the opinion’ was open to judicial scrutiny. The Apex Court in Shambhu Nath Goyal Vs. Bank of Baroda7 (Shambhu Nath Goyal) referring to the language of Section 10 (1), the Court pointed out that the power conferred on the government by this provision to refer the dispute can be