PREM KAKAR versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR.

Citation: [1976] 3 S.C.R. 1010 · Decided: 05-04-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. RAY · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
1010 
PREM KAKAR 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR. 
April 5, 1976 
[A. N. RAY, C.J. AND )ASWANT SINGH, J.) 
Writ of Manda1nus-Whether Rule Nisi can be issued to co1npel the State 
to n1ake a reference uls 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act-Art 226 fl/ the 
Constitutio11-lnd11strial Dfaputes Act, Ss. 10(1) and 12(5)-Scope of. 
Under section 12(5) read with 10(1) of the JndJJstrial Disputes Act, if on 
consideration of a failure rep_ort u/s 12 ( 4) from the conciliation officer, the 
appropriate Government is satisfied and is of opinion that there is an industrial 
dispute and a case for reference, it may make such reference to the labour court. 
On considering the "failure report", of the conciliation proceedings in respect ~ 
of the appellant, an Electrical foreman, the respondent state informed him ~ 
that his duties being supervisory with wages more than Rs. 500/ - his ca'ic was 
not covered by the definition of the terms "workrnan" under the Industrial 
Disputes Act and therefore, not a fit case for adjudication. 
·rhe appellant 
assailed the said orders under Art. 226, which was dismissed. 
On appeal by special leave the appellant contended that the question whether 
an employee is a workman or not was a disputed question of fact and law 
and, 
therefore could only be decided by a Jabour court and on a reference 
only; but-not by the State Gover:riment \vhile exercising its powers u/s 12(5). 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : (1) The order of the Government acting under s. 10(1) read \Vith 
section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act passed after subjective satisfaction 
is an administrative order and not a judicial or a quasi-judicial one. [1012A] 
Stae of Madras v. C. P. Sarathy, [1953] S.C.R. 334 and State of Bon1bay 
v. K. P. Krishnan & Ors. [1961] I S.C.R. 227 [followed]. 
(ii) In entertaining 'OO application for a writ of lnandarnus against an order 
made by the appropriate Government under section 10(1) read with s. 12(5) 
of the Act the court does not sit in appeal over the order and is not entitled 
to consider the propriety or the satisfactory character of the reasons. 
If it 
appears from the reasons j;!;iven that the appropriate Government took into 
account any consideration irrelevant or foreign, then the court may in a given 
case consider the case for a writ of mandanuts. 
[1012-A-C] 
Bo1nbay Union of Journalists & Ors. v. The State of Bolnbay & A~1r. [1964] 
• 
6 S.C.R. 22 (followed). 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil 
Appeal 
No. 
119 
of 
1975. 
~ 
H 
Appeal by Special leave from the Judgment 
and 
order 
15-4-1974 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil 
Petition No. 4289 of 1973. 
N. N. Goswami and Arvind Minocha for the Appel!ant. 
dated 
Writ 
G. B. Pai, S. R. 
Agarwal, Parveen Kumar and Khaitan & Co. 
for Respondent No. 2. 
• 
• 
• 
PREM KAKKAR v. HARYANA (Ray, C.J.) 
10J1 
A 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
' .-
RAY, C.J.-This appeal by special leave turns on the 
question 
• 
whether the State can be asked by a writ of mandamus to make a 
reference under section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act (herir 
inafter referred to as the Act). 
The appellant was employed by the respondent company Hindus-
tan Dowidat Tools Ltd. 
The services of the appellant were termi-
nated on 4th September, 1972. · The appellant thereafter demanded 
reinstatement. 
The Conciliation Officer started conciliation proceed-
ings under section 12 of the Act. 
No settlement could be arrived 
at. 
The Conciliation Officer sent a report to the State Government 
under section 12 ( 4) of the Act. 
The State Government by letter 
dated 7 June, J 973 informed the appellant that the Government had 
considered the appellant's case not fit for reference to the Labour 
Court for adjudication. 
The Government in the letter stated as follows : 
"The Government have not found your case 
fit 
for 
B 
c 
adjudication to a Labour Court because you were working 
D 
as an Electrical Foreman in this concern, which 
was a 
supervisory job and your wages were more than Rs. 5001-
per month. 
Therefore, your case is not covered by 
the 
definition of the terms "Workman" given in the Industrial 
Disputes Act." 
The appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution applied for 
a writ of mandamus directing the State to make a reference. 
The 
E 
High Court dismissed the application. 
The appellant contended that the question whether the appellant 
was a workman was a disputed question of fact

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