M. P. IRRIGATION KARAMCHARI SANGH versus THE STATE OF M. P. AND ANR.

Citation: [1985] 2 S.C.R. 1019 · Decided: 27-02-1985 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.A. DESAI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

i 
I 
' 
1019 
M. P. IRRIGATION KARAMCHARI SANGH 
v. 
THE STATE OF M. P. AND ANR. 
27th February, 1985 
[D. A. DESAI, V. BALAKRISHNA ERADI AND V. KHALID, JJ] 
Reference of disputes to Courts/Tribunal by the appropriate Gtnernment 
under uctlon JO (I) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Nature scope of th• 
jurisdiction of the State Government under section 10 read with section 12 (5) 
of the Act. 
The appellant is a trade union registered under the Trade Unions 
Act. 
It represents employees in the Chambal Project of Government Or 
Madhya Pradesh in Gwalior Division. 
The union raised lhree demands, 
namely, (1) Cbambal allowance; (2) Dearness allowance equal to that of the 
Central Government employees; and (3) Wages for the period of strike 
lasting 20 days in the year 1966 and served notices of these demands on 
the Deputy Chief Engineer, Major Project Chambal 
Since the attemp11 
for settlement by the canciliatioa officer failed, a full report of the dispute 
under section 12 (4) of the Act was sent to the State Government which, 
by its order dated 15. 3. 1969, refused to refer the matter to the concerned 
Tribunal. 
The appellant took the matter before tho High Court by filing 
Miscellaneous Petition No. 29 / 69 for a mandamus to the State Government 
to refer the matter for adjudication. 
The High Court allowed the writ 
Petition, and directed the State Government to consider the question whe .. 
tber a reference was oecessarJ or not. 
The Government again refused to 
refer the dispute to the Tribunal, taking the stand that the provisions of the 
Industrial Disputes Act were not applicable to the workmen in the Chambal 
Scheme as it was not 
'Industry~. The appellant approached the High 
Court for the second time by filing Miscellaneous Petition No. 4S of 1970 
and challenged tho said orders. 
The High Court allowed the petition and 
directed the Government to take suitable action under section 12 (5) of the 
Act. 
The Governm;.!ot challenged the said decision before the Supreme 
Court by filing SLP No. 933 of 1972 without succes. Later, by its order 
dated 13. 1. 72, the State Government referred to the Tribunal only the 
third question of payment of wages for the sh ike period and declined to 
refer the other two questions for the reasons that (a) the Government was 
not in a position to bear the additional burden and (b) the grant of the 
special allowance claimed would invite similar demands by other employees 
which would affect tho entire administration. 
The appellant was perforcell 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
8 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
1020 
SUPRllMB conr Rl!PORTS 
[1985) 2 S.C.R. 
to approach the Hillh Court, for the third time, bJ way of a Miscellaneous 
Petition No. 127 of 1972 for a direction to tho State to refer the other two 
demands also. 
In the meanwhile, the Supreme Court by its decision dated 
July 20, i°978 confirmed the High Court's order that Chambal Project was 
an 'industry' within the meaning of the Act. whereupon the Government 
revicwtd the matter and passed an order on 3. 5. 19 aivioa aditional 
reasons for declininr to refer the dispute for adjudication namely, (a) the 
State Government was not in a position and therefore cannot pay Central 
DA to any of its employees in any department and (b) the work charged 
employees who get a consolidated salary are not entitled to Chambal allow .. 
ance under the rules. 
The High Court, by its decision dated 8th August 
1980 dismissed the petition holding that the reasons given by the Court 
are germane and relevant. 
Hence the appeal by special leave. 
Allowing tho appeal, tho Court, 
HELD : I.I Tho reason• given by the State Government to decline 
reference are beyond the powers of the Government under the relevant 
sections of the Industrial Disputes Act. [1026C] 
1.2 
While conceding a very limited jurisdiction to the Sta to Govern-
ment to examine patent frivolousness of the demands, it is to be understood 
as a rnle, that adjudication of demands made by workmen should be left to 
the Tribunal to decide. 
Section 10 permits appropriate Government to 
determine whether dispute "exists or is apprehended" and then refer it for 
adjudication on merits. 
The demarcated functions are (!) reference, (2) 
adjudication. [102SH; I026A] 
1.3 
When a reference is rejected on the specious plea that the 
Government cannot bear the additional burden, it constitutes adjudication 
and thereby usurpation of the power of a ·quasi judicial Tribunal by an 
administ

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