LexGOVIND SUGAR MILLS LTD. & ANR versus HIND MAZDOOR SABHA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
•
. ,,
•
•
.--
A
B
c
D
E
251
GOVIND SUGAR MILLS LTD. & ANR
v.
HIND MAZDOOR SABHA & ORS.
August 5, 1975
fA. ALAGlRISWAMI, P. K. GOSWAMI AND N. L. UNTWAL\A, JJ.J
lJ.P. Industrial Dis.nutes Act (28 of 1947) as an1ended by U.P.
Act 1 of
1957, s. 3(b). and 4K~lf Gorenunent can be directed to refer dispute .
Under s. 3{b) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the State Govern~
ment :ssued a notification directing that the recommendations of the First Sugar
Wage Board were to come into force from November t, 1960.
The appellant
refused to implement the provisions of the notification. There was, consequently,
an industrial dispute but the State Government passed an order refusing to refer
th~ dispute for adjudication under s. 4K of the Act. In a writ petition filed by
the respondent, the High Court, following the decision Qf this Court in State of
U.P. v. Basti Sugar A1ills Co. Ltd. [1961] 2 S.C.R. 330, issued a writ of certiorari
quashing the order of. the State Government refusing to n1ake a reference, _and
also, issued a writ of ma11da1nus directing the State Government and the Labour
Commissioner to refer the dispute for adjudicati.on under s. 4-K.
Allowing the appeal to his Court against the issue of the writ of 111a1ulan1us :
HELD: (1) The power of the Government under s. 10 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act) is discretionary and it is open to the Govern-
nient, taking !J1to consideration relevant factors, to refuse to make a ref'Cfence;
that is, the High Court may, after quashing the order of the Government refus-
ing to rriake a reference, ask the Government to re-consider the n1atter but it
could not give peremptory directions to make a reference. Section 4-K of the
U.P. Act, divorced from the context and set up of s. 3 is in pafi 111ateria v;·ith and
s:ands on the same footing as s. 10(1) of the Central A:t. [253B]
Ml s Mahabir Jute Mills Ltd. Gorakhpore v. Sflri Sliibban Lal Saxena & Ors.
Civil Appeal No. 781 of 1973, followed.
(2) Section 3(d), as it stood in the·U.P. Act before 1957, was so interwoven
and inter·connected with the exercise of the power in cl. (b) that it led this Court
in the Basti Sugar Mills case to opine that a writ of mandamus could be issued
directing the State Government to make a reference. The position, ho,Yever, has
F
changed after the a_men<lments brought about in 1957 [253B-CJ
H
(3) The observation that, if the Government refuses to make a reference on
the basis of ii-relevant considerations, the party may move the High Court for a
writ of nia11dan1us in the Bo1nbay Union of Journalists case [19641 6 S.C.R. 22,
35 on1y means that a n1a11da111us can be issued to the Government to re·consider
the matter.
[253F]
( 4) The reference of the dispute made by· the Government in pursuance of
the direction of the High Court cannot hold good, but the State Government may
reconsider the matter and exercise its discretion either to refer the dispute or not,
within the ambit of well-settled principles of law.
[254A-B]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 795 of 1975.
Appeal by special leave from the Judgment and Order dated the
7th December, 1973 of the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench)
in special appeal No. 189 of 196,.
B. Sen, B. P. Maheshwari and Suresh Sethi, for the appellant.
252
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1976] 1 s.c.R.
J. P. Goyal, D. P. Mukherjee and
Reghunath Singh,
for res-
pondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
UNTWALIA, J.-This is an appeal by special leave. It is said that
by a notification dated 27-4-1961 issued under section 3(b) of the
U.P. Industrial Disputes Act-U.P. Act XXVIU of 1947-herein-
after called the Act, the recommendations of the first Sugar Wage
Board were directed to come in force with effect from November 1,
1960. Certain Sugar Mills including the appellants are said to have
refused to implement the provisions of the notification dated 27-4-1961.
This gave rise to an industrial dispute. Eventually the State Govern-
ment of U ttar Pradesh by its order dated 22-9-1966 refused to make
a reference for adjudication of the dispute under section 4K of the
Act.
Respondent no. 1 filed a writ application in the Allahabad
High Court under Article 226 of the Constitu!ion of India asking
for a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the ·Government dated
22-6-1966 and a writ of mandamus directing them to make a refor-
mce.
A learned single Judge of the HigExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.