NIZAM SUGARS LIMITED Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The validity of the order of the Government made on 16-1-1994 under Sec.10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for short 'the Act', is called in question by the Petitioner-Management The Government by that order has referred a dispute existing between the Management of the petitioner-factory and its workmen represented by Joint Action Committee, Nizam Sugar factory limited-respondent No.4 herein.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned action of the Government is not sustainable on the grounds i) that the order is based on extraneous considerations; ii) the fourth respondent is not at all a Trade Union and since the reference came to be made by the State Government at its instance, the reference is invalid; iii) the reference order is based on misrepresentation made by Joint Additional Commissioner of Labour opining that the fourth respondent is a Trade Union; iv) when the dispute was pending before the Conciliation Officer, five of the units out of ten units have settled the dispute in conciliation proceedings; and v) that before referring the industrial dispute to the Industrial Tribunal the Government ought to have held an election as required under the Code of Conduct and Discipline and only after ascertaining whether the fourth respondent Union enjoys support of the majority of workmen in the industry and only in the event of the fourth respondent enjoying the support of majority of workmen in the industry, the Government should have referred the dispute and in the present case that exercise was not done and therefore reference is invalid.

(3.) I do not find any merit in any of the grounds advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is too late in the day to place these arguments to assail the validity of a reference made by the appropriate Government under S. 10(1)(d) of the Act. The scope of judicial review of an order made under Sec.10(1)(d) of the Act is very much limited The points urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner except the point that the impugned order is based on extraneous considerations, are mentioned above by me only to be rejected.