LexRAM AVTAR SHARMA & ORS. ETC. versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
B c JlAM AVTAR SHARMA & ORS. ETC. v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR. ETC. Aprilll, 1985 (D.A. DESAI AND RANGANATH MISRA, JJ.J Constitution of India, Art.32 and 226-Refusa/ by appropriate Government fo refer industrial dispute to lndustrial Tribuna/flahour Court 11/s, JO, J.D.Act- Function of Government u/s. 10 - Whether administralative or Quasi-Judicial -When a writ of mandamus can be issued. D Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, s. JO-Reference-Exercise of power by E. F G Govt. to refer an industrial dispute to inJr,striaf Tribunal Labour Court-Whe- • ther a writ can be issued against refusal of Govern1nent to refer the dispute. Administrative Law-Function of f!overntnent ufs. JO J.D. Act to refer a dispute-Whether admini'stratfre or quasi~judr'cial. Jn a11 the writ petitions, the petitioners were dismissed from service on the grotfnd of miscoilduct after an enquiry held against each of thrm. They raised an industrial dispute contending that the orders imposing punishment of removal were illegal and invalid. The conciliation proceedtngs also failed. 1he State Government in W.Ps. Nos. 16226-29 of 1984 and the Central Government in W.P. No. 16418 of 1984 passed identical orders in each case refusing to make a reference to the Tribunal u/s. 10(1) 9f the Industrial Disputes Act t9t7 holding that the punishment was imposed on the peti- tioners after an enquiry has been held in accoi-dance with th¢ rules and that the removal from service is neither malafide nor unjustified and therefore it was not a fit cai;e for making the refer~n.::~. H'!ncc th-~s~ writ petitions. Allowing the oetions, lJELD: 1.(i) In making a referl!n.;e u/;;. 10([) the appropriate govern- ment performs an administrative act and not a judicial or qu:oisi-judicial act and the fact that it has to f0rm an opinion as to the factual e.tistence of an industrial dispute as a preliininary step to the discharge of it<; function do·es not make it ftnY the less administrative in character. Assuming that making or refusing 11 to make a reference under Soc. 10(1) is a quasi.judicial function, there is 'I ) RAM AVTAR V. HARYANA 687 bound to be a conflict of jurisdiction if the reference is ultimately made. A A quasi-judicial function is to some extent an adjudicatory function in a tis bet.ween two contending parties. The Government as an umpire, assuming that it is performing a qu1'>i-judicial function when it proceeds to make _a reference, would imply that the quasi-judicial determination of !is prima facie shows: that one who raised th~ di~pute has established merits of the dispute. 'rhe inference necessarily follows from the assumption that the function per- formed under Sec. 10(1) is a quasi-judicial function. Now by exercising B power under Sec. 10, a reference is made to a Tribunal for adjudication and the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that there was no merit in the dispute, prima facie a conflict of jurisdiction may emerge. Therefore, the view that while exercising power under sec. JC(l) the fu'lction performed by the appro- priate Government is an administrative function and not a judicial or qu!lsi- judic~al function is beyond the pale of controversy. [692F-H; 693A·CJ State of Madras v. C.P. Saraihy & · Anr. (1953] S.C. R. 335 at 347 Western India Match Co. Ltd. v. Western India Match Co. Workers Union & . Ors. [1970] 2 SCR' 370 ~and Sa1nbu Nath Goyal v. Bank of Baroda, Jul/u11dur (1978] 2 SCR 793 followed. c (2) Every administrative determination must be based on grounds re- D levant and germace to the exercise of power. If the adminhtrative determina- tion is based on the irrelevant, extraneous or grounds not germane to the exereise of power it is liable to be questioned in exercise of the power of judicial review. In such a situation the court would bejustified in issuing a writ of mandamus even in respect of an administrative order. Maybe, the court may not issue writ of mandamus, directing the Government to make a reference but the cour! can after examining the reasons given by the E appropriate Government for refu"sin2 to make a reference come to a conclu- sion that they are irrelevant. extraneous or not germane to the determina~ tion and then can direct the Government to reconsider the matter. [693F-H; 694A] (3) In the instaJ;lt cases, the workmen questioned the_legality and vali- dity of the enquiry which aspect the Tribunal in a quasi.judicial determination was required to examine
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.