LexMIS RAHMAN INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD versus STATE OF LJ.P. AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2016] 1S.C.R.112 MIS RAHMAN INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. v. STATE OF lJ.P. AND OTHERS (Civil Appeal No. 286 of 2016) JANUARY 18, 2016 [KURIAN JOSEPH AND R. F. NARIMAN, JJ.] Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Power of Government - To refer the industrial dispute for adjudication - Judicial interference C - Permissibility - Held: In the scheme of the Act it is well within jurisdiction of the Government to examine a case for the purpose of satisfying itself as to existence of dispute for reference - Judicial order may interfere with such power of Government, only when it finds thar the reference of the dispute was unjustified and on irrelevant factors - Jn the present case, the High court, by directing D the Government to refer the dispute for adjudication, has denied the jurisdiction vested in the Government, and such direction is against the Scheme of the Act. E F Partly allowing the appeal, the Conrt HELD: 1. In the scheme of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, it is not as if the Government has to act as a post office by referring each and every petition received by them. The Government is well within its jurisdiction to see whether there exists a dispute worth referring for adjudication. Only in case, on judicial scrutiny, the court finds that the refusal of the Government to make a reference of the dispute is unjustified on irrelevant factors, the court may issue a direction to the Government to make a reference. [Para 4] [114-F-G, H; 115-A]] 2. The High Court has, in the impugned order, denied the jurisdiction vested in the Government in the scheme of the Act G to examine a case for the purpose of satisfying itself as to whether there exists a dispute for referring to the Labour Court/lndustrial Tribunal for adjudication. The High Court has issued a mandatory direction in the very first instance to refer the dispute, if any, raised by the workmen for adjudication before the Labour Court. That is against the scheme of the Act. [Para 9] [115-G; 116-A]] H 112 MIS RAHMAN INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. v. STATE OF U.P. l 13 3. The impugned order is set aside to the extent that there A is a mandatory direction for referring the issues raised by the workman for adjudication. However, is clarified that the Government must examine whether a dispute exists or not, and in case it is so satisfied, it should refer the same for adjudication before the Labour Court. [Para 10] [116-B-C] Steel Authority of India v. Union of India (2006) 12 SCC 233: 2006 (6) Suppl. SCR 663; Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers Limited and Anr. v. General Employees 'Association and Ors. (2007) 5 SCC 273: 2007 (5) SCR 457; Te/co Convoy Drivers Mazdoor Sangh and Anr. v. State of Bihar and Ors. (1989) 3 SCC 271:1989 (2) SCR 802; Sarva Shramik Sangh v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited (2009) 11 SCC 609: 2009 (6) SCR 39 - relied on. Case Law Reference 2006 ( 6) Suppl. SCR 663 2007 (5) SCR 457 1989 (2) SCR 802 2009 (6) SCR 39 relied on. relied on. relied on. relied on. Para 5 Para6 Para7 Paras CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 286 of2016 From the Judgment and Order dated 09.02.2011 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in Writ Petition 5753 (M/S) B c D E of2010 F Pradeep Kant, Aditya Singh, Divyanshu Sahay for the Appellant. Viresh Kumar Yadav, Md. Farman, Bharti Tyagi, Ravi Prakash Mehrotra for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KURIAN, J.: I. Leave granted. G 2. The appellant challenged the award dated 27.08.2010 passed under the provisions of the Timely Payment of Wages Act, 1978 and the recovery before the High Court leading to the impugned judgment dateci 09.02.2011. The High Court found that the order passed by the Labour H 114 A B c D SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] l S.C.R. Court was without jurisdiction, and hence, the impugned orders were quashed. However, it was clarified that the judgment of the High Court did not mean that the workmen was left without any remedy. The question was only on invocation of proper remedy before the appropriate forum. And thus, it was directed that in case, any such matter is brought before the Government, the Government will refer it for adjudication before the Labour Court. To quote: "However, quashing of the orders under the Timely Payment of Wages Act, 1978 by this Court will not mean that the claim of the workmen has been rejected in any manner. The Court has no
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.