AVON SERVICES (PRODUCTION AGENCIES) PVT. LTD. versus INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, HARYANA FARIDABAD & ORS .

Citation: [1979] 2 S.C.R. 45 · Decided: 06-10-1978 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.R. KRISHNA IYER · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

45 
AVON SERVICES (PRODUCTION AGENCIES) PVT. LTD. 
A 
v. 
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, HARYANA FARIDABAD & ORS . 
• 
October 6, 1978 
[V. R. KRISHNA IYER AND D. A. DESAI, JJ.] 
• 
Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (XIV of 1947)-S. 10(1)-Government re-
~ 
fused to refer dispute for adjudication-If could reconsider decision and refer 
diJpute after lapse of time-Whether fresh material necessary for reconsideration 
of earlier decision. 
1 
• • 
Ss. 25F and 25 l'FF-Notice of retrenchment-Undertaking what iJ--
Closure of painting sub-section in a factory. not closure of undertaking. 
C 
Words and I'hrases-'At any time'-Meaning of. 
The 
appellant's factory ·!Vas divided into 
two sections; manufacturing 
5ection and packing material making section. 
The packing material making 
section comprised two sub-sections : manufacturing containers and painting 
containers. 
The appellant decided to buy containers from the market and 
consequently closed down its packing material making section but continued 
the painting section. 
After a lapse of years, the employer served a notice 
of retrenchment on the two workmen (respondents nos. 3 and 4) and an-
other employee all of whom at that time were working in the painting 
section alleging that the undertaking is closed. 'They v.·ere asked to collect 
their dues under s. 25FFF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 
The Trade Union of the employees submitted a number of demands one 
of which related to the reinstatement of the two retrenchment workmen 
with full back wages. 
The Government referred all their demands to the 
Industrial Tribunal but declined to refer the demand relating to reinstatement 
of the two retrenched workmen. 
A few months later, however, the Govern-
ment referred this demand as well for adjudication. 
The Tribunal held (I) that though in the first instance the Government 
refused to refer the dispute it was competent to make a reference at a later 
date and '(2) that the retrenchment of the workmen was invalid because the 
appellant did not comply with the provision of s. 25F. 
The appellant's writ petition was dismissed in limine. 
In appeal to this Court it was contended that (1) the Government having 
D 
E 
F 
once declined to make a reference, had no power to make a reference in 
G 
respect of the same dispute at a later date unless it had some fresh or 
additional material before it; and (2) since the painting undertaking was 
a separate and independent undertaking, the case was governed by s. 25FFF 
and not hy s, 25F . 
Dismissing the appeal, 
HELD : ,:1. (i) The Government does not lack .the power to make refer-
H 
ence in respect of the same industrial dispute which it once declined to 
T 
refer. [53G] 
' 
A 
B 
c 
D 
46 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1979] 2 S.C.R. 
(ti) The- opinion which the appropriate Government is required to form 
before referring a dispute to the appropriate authorit.y under s. 10(1) is about 
the existence of a dispute or even if the dispute has not arisen it is appre·· 
bended as imminent and requires resolution in the interest of industriaJ 
peace and harmony. 
The power under this section, which is discretionary, 
can be exercised when the Government is satisfied that an industrial dispute 
exists or is apprehended. 
There must be some material before the Govern· 
ment forms an opinion in respect of the two relevant considerations. Moreover. 
the power conferred being adminis'!.rative in nature the action of the Govern· 
ment in making the reference is an administrative act. 
The jurisdictional facts 
on \Vhich the appropriate Government may act are the formation of opinion 
that an industrial dispute exist<; or is apprehended, which is a subjective 
one. 
That being so the adequacy or sufficiency of the material on which 
the opinion was formed is beyond the pale of judicial scrutiny. 
If the Go-
vernment's action is impugned by a party it would be open to such a party 
to show that what was referred was not an industrial dispute and that the 
tribunal had no jurisdiction to make the award. 
If the dispute was an indus-
trial dispute its factual existence and the expediency of making a reference 
being n1atters entirely for the Government to decide, it wilJ not be competel:'lt 
for the court to hold the reference bad merely because there was, in its 
opinion, no material before the Government on which it could have come to 
an affirmative conclusion on those matters. [51E-52B] 
State of Madras v. C. P. Sarathy, [1953) SCR 334 referred to. 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.