TELCO CONVOY DRIVERS MAZDOOR SANGH & ANR. versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

Citation: [1989] 2 S.C.R. 802 · Decided: 28-04-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. DUTT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
TELCO CONVOY DRIVERS MAZDOOR SANGH & ANR. -
v. 
~ 
STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. 
APRIL 28, 1989 
B 
[MURARI MOHON DUTT AND T.K. THOMMEN, JJ.) 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Sections JO and 12-Jndustrial y 
Dispute--Appropriate Government-Power to make a reference~ 
Nature of-Whether includes power to delve into merits of dispute- 1 
Formation of opinion by Government-Whether dispute 'Exists or is 
Apprehended'-Whether same thing as to adjudicate the dispute on its -
c merits-Court-When can direct the Government to make a reference. 
The appellant-Telco Convoy Drivers Mazdoor Sangh, represen- 'r 
ted to the Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Lid. (TELCO) demand-
ing that all convoy drivers should be given permanent status and 
D facilities that are available lo the permanent employees of TELCO. The 
Deputy Labour Commissioner refused lo make a reference under 
section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 because of the opinion 
of the Law Department that there was no relationship of master and 
servant between TELCO and the convoy drivers. 
E 
The appellant-Sangh filed a writ petition in the High Court pray- +-· 
ing for a writ of mandamus commanding the State llf Bihar lo refer the 
dispute under section lO(l) of the Act. The High Court dismissed the 
petition but granted liberty to the appellant-Sangh to reagitate the 
• 
matter before the appropriate Government. 
F 
On a further representation also the Deputy Labour Commis-
sinner refnsed to make a reference under section 10(1) of the Act. 
'-'( 
Again, the appellant-Sangh moved a writ petition in the High Court 
which summarily dismissed the petition holding that the appellants had )... 
failed to satisfy that they were employed by the TELCO. Hence this 
appeal by Special leave. After the conclusion of the hearing, the Court 
G being of the view that the Government should be given one more chance 
to consider the question of making a reference, kept the appeal pending 
and directed the Government to reconsider the question of referring the 
.,....-
dispute. Upon reconsideration also the Government refused to make a 
reference under section 10(1) of the Act. On the question: whether an 
appropriate Government exercising power to make a reference under 
H section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 can delve into the 
802 
• 
DRIVERS MAZDOOR SANGH v. STATE OF BIHAR 
803 
I 
_ _) merits of the dispute and adjudicate upon the dispute itself. 
Allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment of the High 
Court, 
HELD: 1. In considering the question of making a reference 
'j 
under section IO( I), the Government is entitled to form an opinion as to 
' 
lwhether an industrial dispute "exists or is apprehended". The forma-
rtion of opinion as to whether an industrial dispute "exists or is 
apprehended" is not the same thing as to adjudicate the dispute itself on 
-
its merits. [807 A] 
2. While exercising power under section 10(1) of the Act, the 
function of the appropriate Government is an administrative function 
and not a judicial or quasi-judicial function, and in performing this 
administrative function the Government cannot delve into the merits of 
the dispute and take upon itself the determination of the tis, which 
would certainly be in excess of the power conferred on it by section 10 of 
the Act. [S07F] 
Ram Avtar Sharma v. State of Haryana, [1985] 3 S.C.R. 686; 
M.I'. Irrigation Karamchari Sangh v. The State of M.P., [1985] 2 
S.C.R. 1019 and Shambhu Nath Goyal v. Bank of Baroda, Jullundhur, 
[197S] 2 S.C.R. 793 applied. 
2.1 In the instant case, the dispute is as to whether the convoy 
drivers are employees or workmen, of TELCO, that is to say, whether 
there is relationship of employer and employees between TELCO and 
the convoy drivers, the same cannot be decided by the Government in 
',. 
exercise of its administrative function under section 10(1) of the Act. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
Therefore, the State Government was not justified in adjudicating the 
F 
~ said dispute. [807B, 807H, SOSA] 
~--{ 
3. There may b~ exceptional cases in which the State Govern-
ment may come to a conclusion that the demands are either perverse 
or frivolous and do not merit a reference. But the Government should 
be very slow to attempt an examination of the demand with a view 
G 
to declining reference and Courts will always be vigilant whenever 
the Government attempts to usnrp the powers of the Tribunal for 
adjudication of valid disputes, and that to allow the Governmen

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