LexSULTAN SINGH versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
SULTAN SINGH A v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR. DECEMBER 12, 1995 [K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA JJ.] B Labour Laws .-Industrial Disputes Ac~ 1947-Sections 10(1) and 12( 5 )-Workman-Chargesheet tennination orde,-.Demand for reinstatement rejected-Application for reference-Refused by the State Govern- ment-Second Applicatiolt-Note by a Minister directing reference-State C Government found it unnecessary, to reconsider its earlier ordei-Hence there is no reference by the State Government. Appellant was a workman with the Respondents. His services were terminated and his demand for reinstatement was rejected. He made an application for reference under Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act to D the State Government. His first application was rejected. His second application lf!is also rejected by the Government since it did not consider it necessary to reconsider its earlier decision already taken. Appellant filed a Writ Petition and the High Court dismissed the E same holding that before making reference on second application it was incumbent upon the State Government to give notice to the employer and to give an opportunity to the employer and record reasons for making reference. Hence this appeal. Disposing of the appeal, the Court F HELD : 1. A conjoint reading of Sections 12(5) and 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act is conclusive that on receipt of an application for reference it would be open to the State Government to form an opinion whether any industrial dispute exists or apprehended and then either to G make a reference or refuse to make a reference. Only on rejection thereof, the order needs to be communicated to the applicant. [631-D) 2. The order of refusal for reference is only an administrative order and not a quasi-judicial order. Therefore no lis is involved. Hence, there is no need to issue any notice to the employer nor to hear him before H 629 630 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. A making a reference or refnsing to make a reference. [631-E-F] 3. In the instant case, there was no reference ordered by the State Government. It was of the opinion that no industrial dispute existed and it declined to make reference nuder Section 10(1). The earlier application of the appellant was rejected on the ground of settlement of the matter B between the appellant and the respondents. Second application was also rejected in view of the earlier rejection and the Government did not consider it necessary to reconsider its earlier decision, although a Minister made a note directing reference. [632-C-DJ C CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 9719 of 1995. From the Judgment and Order dated 6.8.84 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in W.P. No. 2285 of 1984. D R.C. Kaushik for the Appellants. J.S. Goyal and Ms. Indu Malhotra for the Respondents. The following Order of the Court was delivered : E Two questions arise in this appeal, namely, (1) whether the State should hear the respondent/employer before making a reference on a second representation under Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act') since it was rejected on an earlier occasion; and (2) whether there is an order of reference by the State Government so as to entitle the appellant to have the dispute adjudicated by the tribunal. F The facts are not in dispute. Way back in 1955, the appellant had joined respondents as a workmen (Khalasi). He was promoted on Septem- ber 6, 1972 as a tape-reader. He was served with a charge- sheet on June 28, 1979 and his services were terminated on August 9, 1979. On June 30, 1981, he made a demand on the respondent/employer for reinstatement G which was rejected. Thereafter, he made an application for reference under Section 10 of the Act to the State Government which was rejected by order dated October 20, 1981. The appellant again made a representation on March 25, 1982 and the Minister made a note on the representation directing to make a reference. However, since no communication was H received by the appellant, he wrote a letter to the Labour Commissioner, - SULTAN SINGH v. STATE 631 Haryana, on April 26, 1984 but to no avail. He then filed the writ petition. A By order dated August 6, 1984 in CWP No. 2885/84, the High Court · dismissed the writ petition. The first question is whether the State should give a hearing to the employer before making a reference on second application, since on an earlier occas
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.