Moolchand Kharati Ram Hospital K. Union Vs. Labour Commr. & Co.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 681-682/1997
Petitioner: Moolchand Kharati Ram Hospital K. Union
Respondent: Labour Commr. & Co.
Apeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 681-682/1997
Judges: S. RAJENDRA BABU & D.P. MOHAPATRA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Sep 19, 2000
Head Note:
LABOUR AND INDUSTRIAL LAWS
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Section 10 with Constitution – Article 226 – Reference by Govern-ment regarding entitlement of workmen to have wages of lock out period – Writ for quashing reference as basic question not re-ferred – Management denying lock out – Reference quashed by High Court – Justification. Held that quashing cannot be faulted as relevant considerations were not taken note of by Government. However, Labour Commissioner directed to consider all relevant material and refer the dispute.
Held:
Even if the nature of the order, making a reference, is adminis-trative in character, it is certainly open to the High Court to examine whether relevant considerations in making the reference had been taken note of or not. In the view of the High Court, relevant considerations have not been taken note of by the Gov-ernment and that finding cannot be seriously disputed.
(Para 4)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. A reference was made to the Industrial Tribunal, under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act and the following question was referred:
“Whether the workmen shown in Annexure ‘A’ are entitled to wages for the lock out period w.e.f. 11.2.1995 and, if so, what direc-tions are necessary in this respect?”
2. The Management of the hospital, which is the third respondent in these appeals, filed a writ petition for quashing of the reference, on the ground that the real dispute between the par-ties as to whether a lock out was presumed and the consequential question was referred but not the basic question and, therefore, the reference is bad in law. The stand of the Management is that there is no lock out at all. Learned Single Judge, before whom the matter came up for consideration, took the view that the dispute actually referred, did not reflect the real dispute bet-ween the parties, the Management having disputed the very exist-ence of lock out and hence issued the writ quashing the refer-ence.
3. The workmen filed an appeal to the Division Bench, stating that the relevant material placed before the Government having been considered, the real dispute between the parties had been referred to the Industrial Tribunal and that the order in ques-tion being administrative in nature, could not be interfered with at all.The High Court examined the matter and took the view that the learned Single Judge is justified in quashing the order of reference.
4. In these appeals, the contention put forth before us is that the order made by the Government, making a reference to the Tribunal, is administrative in character and, therefore, the High Court should not have interfered with the same. Even if we proceed on the basis that the nature of the order, making a reference, is administrative in character, it is certainly open to the High Court to examine whether relevant considerations in making the reference had been taken note of or not. In the view of the High Court, relevant considerations have not been taken note of by the Government and that finding cannot be seriously disputed.
5. In the circumstances, we think the view of the High Court is justified. However, that would not solve the problem of the parties. The proper course to be adopted is to direct the first respondent to take appropriate steps to make a reference to the concerned Tribunal after considering all the relevant material on record in the case. Let such steps be taken within three months from today. The appeals stand disposed of accordingly.
1. A reference was made to the Industrial Tribunal, under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act and the following question was referred:
“Whether the workmen shown in Annexure ‘A’ are entitled to wages for the lock out period w.e.f. 11.2.1995 and, if so, what direc-tions are necessary in this respect?”
2. The Management of the hospital, which is the third respondent in these appeals, filed a writ petition for quashing of the reference, on the ground that the real dispute between the par-ties as to whether a lock out was presumed and the consequential question was referred but not the basic question and, therefore, the reference is bad in law. The stand of the Management is that there is no lock out at all. Learned Single Judge, before whom the matter came up for consideration, took the view that the dispute actually referred, did not reflect the real dispute bet-ween the parties, the Management having disputed the very exist-ence of lock out and hence issued the writ quashing the refer-ence.
3. The workmen filed an appeal to the Division Bench, stating that the relevant material placed before the Government having been considered, the real dispute between the parties had been referred to the Industrial Tribunal and that the order in ques-tion being administrative in nature, could not be interfered with at all.The High Court examined the matter and took the view that the learned Single Judge is justified in quashing the order of reference.
4. In these appeals, the contention put forth before us is that the order made by the Government, making a reference to the Tribunal, is administrative in character and, therefore, the High Court should not have interfered with the same. Even if we proceed on the basis that the nature of the order, making a reference, is administrative in character, it is certainly open to the High Court to examine whether relevant considerations in making the reference had been taken note of or not. In the view of the High Court, relevant considerations have not been taken note of by the Government and that finding cannot be seriously disputed.
5. In the circumstances, we think the view of the High Court is justified. However, that would not solve the problem of the parties. The proper course to be adopted is to direct the first respondent to take appropriate steps to make a reference to the concerned Tribunal after considering all the relevant material on record in the case. Let such steps be taken within three months from today. The appeals stand disposed of accordingly.
