SIMADRI PATTANAIK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is undertaken by Mr. Das that the notarial fees shall be paid in course of the day. Heard Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State.

(2.) THE petitioner, who is a workman, challenges the order dated 13.02.2002 issued by the Government of Orissa, Labour and Employment Department refusing to refer the matter in terms of Section 12 (5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The ground on which the impugned order is challenged that it is a non -speaking order and no reason has been assigned while refusing to make reference. The further facts as delineated the writ application tend to reveal that the petitioner claiming to be a workman under the opp. party No. 3 raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Commissioner, Jeypore and the conciliation ultimately ended in failure for which a report was submitted to the Government in Department of Labour and Employment. The order so impugned is the order of refusal by the appropriate Government to make a reference under Section 12 (5) of the Act. The impugned order reads as follows :

(3.) IN the impugned order so communicated to the petitioner does not indicate any reason for refusal to refer the same. The prayer of the petitioner being to set aside the aforesaid order and direct the opp. parties/appropriate Government to take a fresh decision on the failure report of the Conciliation Officer, the matter was taken up for final disposal. Law is well settled in this regard that while exercising power under Section 10 (1) the Government performs administrative act while either making or refusing to make a reference under Section 10 (1), it cannot delve into the merits of the dispute and take upon itself the determination of lis. Xxx 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 irrelevant reasons not for justice or industrial peace and harmony. Every administrative determination must be based on grounds relevant and germane to the exercise of powers. If the administrative determination is based on grounds irrelevant extraneous or not germane to the exercise of power it is liable to be questioned in exercise of the power of judicial review, Xxx Therefore, if the grounds on which or the reasons for which the Government declined to make a reference under Section 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. Xxx It is equally well settled that whether the Government purports to give reasons which tantamount to adjudication and refuses to make reference, the appropriate Government could be said to have acted on extraneous, irrelevant grounds or grounds not germane to the determination and a writ of mandamus would lie calling upon the Government to reconsider its decision. (See AIR 1985 SC 915, Ram Avtar Sharma and others v. State of Haryana and another).