JAI RANGA MILLS, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER, K.P. JAYARAM RAJA Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, the challenge is of the order of the first respondent in G.O.Ms. No. 1407, Labour and Employment Department, dated 2.7.1981. By that order, the first respondent decided to refer for adjudication an industrial dispute with reference to non -employment of respondents 2 to 6 by the petitioner. Earlier on 26.5.1980, the first respondent declined to refer the industrial dispute for adjudication by G.O.Ms. No. 1261, Labour and Employment Department. The reconsideration of the question of referring the industrial dispute for adjudication arose on account of a petition therefore preferred, by the Secretary, Panjalai Thozhilalar Sangam (CITU), Rajapalayam, Ramanathapuram District to the first respondent. The specific case of the petitioner is that the first respondent did not by itself give notice to and hear the petitioner on the question of reconsideration. There is no counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 2 to 6. There is a counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent. What is claimed in the counter affidavit of the first respondent in substance is that on the petition for reconsideration, submitted by the Panjalai Thozhilalar Sangam (CITU), Rajapalayam, Ramanathapuram District, the Labour Officer, Ramanathapuram at Madurai, who is the conciliation machinery, heard the petitioner, which offered its remarks to the said Labour Officer on 23.4.1981 and it was not necessary that the first respondent, who would pass orders regarding making a reference or otherwise should by itself give notice to and hear the petitioner on the question. It is further claimed that the first respondent passed orders only after considering the relevant materials.

(2.) MR . A.L. Somayaji, learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that when there had been earlier a decline on the part of the first respondent to refer the industrial dispute for adjudication and when the first respondent has subsequently chosen to make up his mind to refer the industrial dispute for adjudication, the first respondent by itself ought to have given notice to and heard the petitioner and in the instant case admittedly there was no such opportunity afforded to the petitioner by the first -respondent, and this violated the principles of natural justice. Learned Counsel for the petitioner in this behalf would place reliance on the ratio of a Full Bench of this Court in G. Muthukrishnan v. Administrative Manager, New Horizon Sugar Mills (P) Ltd., Pondicheny and Ors., (1980) 4 L.L.J. 215. In that case, there was a decline to refer the industrial dispute for adjudication earlier and subsequently the question was reconsidered and that there was an order of reference. That order of reference was challenged on the ground that the management was not given notice and heard by the Government before making the order of reference. This grievance was countenanced by the learned single Judge and the appeal from the order of the learned single Judge was heard and disposed of by the Full Bench and the Full Bench answered the question as to whether the government for the second time, without notice to and without hearing the management can act and call upon the Labour Court to adjudicate on a dispute, which on an earlier occasion, the Government declined to refer for adjudication, by saying that it would breach the well -known maxim of audi alterum partem and the resultant decision by the Government would be a nullity. The Full Bench opined that the principles of natural justice would be evocable even in a case of administrative decision, saying thus: