KRISHNA BABU GHADIGAOKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A simple but substantial question of law that arises in these Writ Petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, is under what circumstances the appropriate Government may refuse to make a reference under S. 12(2) of the Industrial Disputes act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) The facts common to all the Writ Petitions, as relevant for the purpose of disposal of these writ petitions, are not in dispute. The petitioners, in all the four writ petitions, were alleged to have committed certain misconduct. They were suspended, charge-sheeted and then proceeded against in what is popularly known as domestic enquiry and thereafter dismissed by their employer M/s. Asian Paints (India) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'Respondent No. 3'). On receipt of dismissal order the Petitioners raised industrial disputes and demanded that they be reinstated with back-wages and continuity of service. The Conciliation Officer made efforts to bring about settlement but failed and consequently submitted, what is called, the failure reports under Sub-s. (4) of S. 12 of the Act to the Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Conciliation). The said Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Respondent No. 2) who exercised the powers conferred on her by the Government of Maharashtra (Respondent No. 1) vide her orders dated 21st August, 1984 in respect of writ petitions Nos. 2143 of 1984, 2144 of 1984, and 2145 of 1984 and vide order dated 13/14 December, 1984 in respect of writ petition No. 137 of 1985 refused to make references under Sub-s. (2) of S. 12 of the Act. The said orders are impugned by the petitioners in these writ petitions.

(3.) Mr. Dharap, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners, urged that the reasons given by Respondent No. 2 in not making the references are inadequate and at any rate Government cannot take upon itself the exercise of adjudicating upon the disputes which can only be done either by the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal as the case may be. In the further submission of Mr. Dharap, there was total non-application of mind on the part of Respondent No. 2 in refusing to make references which amounts to arbitrary action on her part. Mr. Dharap also submitted that a harmonous reading of S. 10 with S. 11A of the Act clearly shows that the Petitioner-workmen have a right to justify before the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal as to how the orders of dismissal passed by the Respondent No. 3 were incorrect. Therefore, in refusing to make references, Respondent No. 2 has deprived the Petitioner-workmen of this right. Mr. Dharap then submitted that if references were made, the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal could have gone into the question of adequacy of punishment vis-a-vis the misconduct alleged.