THE SECRETARY, INDIAN TEA ASSOCIATION versus AJIT KUMAR BARAT AND ORS.

Citation: [2000] 1 S.C.R. 787 · Decided: 14-02-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.T. NANAVATI

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

THE SECRETARY, INDIAN TEA ASSOCIATION 
v. 
AJIT KUMAR BARAT AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 14, 2000 
(G.T. NA.."lAVATI AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.] 
Labour Laws : 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Section JO r/w. s.12(5)(1)-R.efer-
ence-Subjective satisfaction of appropriate Government-Scope-Refusal to 
refer the mattei--Powers of Court to interfere. 
Respondent 1 employed as Joint Secretary of appellant Association, 
was dismissed from service for disobeying an order of transfer. Concilia· 
tion proceedings u/s. 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 were held and 
A 
B 
c 
a failure report was submitted, recommending a reference. The Govern· D 
ment regretted its inability to make a reference as respondent 1 was not a 
wor!unan. In wdt proceedings filed by respondent, Single Judge of the 
High Court directed the appropriate Government to make a reference as 
to whether respondent 1 was a workman. Hence this appeal. 
The appellant submitted that while discharging its function u/s. E 
10(1) of the Act, Government was performing an administrative act, there-
fore, court could not hold that the refusal to refer the matter was bad. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. The appropriate Government would not be justified in 
F 
making a reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, 
without satisfying itself on the fact and circumstances brought to its notice 
that an industrial dispute exists or apprehended and if such a reference 
is made it is desirable wherever possible, for the government to indicate 
the nature of dispute in the order of reference. (791-G] 
G 
1.2. The order of the appropriate Government making a reference 
under Section 10 of the Act is an administrative order and not a judicial 
or quasi-judicial one and the court, therefore, cannot canvass the order of 
the reference closely to see if there was any material before the Government 
to support its conclusion, as if it was a judicial or quasi-judicial order; an H 
787 
788 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(200011 S.C.R. 
A order made by the appropriate government under Section 10 of the Act 
being an administrative order no lis is involved, as such an order is made 
on the subjective satisfaction of the Government; if it appears from the 
reasons given that the appropriate government took into account any 
consideration irrelevant or foreign material, court may in a given case 
B consider the case for a writ of mandamus. It would, however, be open to a 
party to show that what was referred by the Government was not an 
industrial dispute within the meaning of the Act. [791-H; 792-A-D] 
1.3. Before malting a reference under Section 10 of the Act, the ap-
propriate Government has to form an opinion whether an employee is a 
C workman and thereafter has to consider as to whether an industrial dispute 
exists or is apprehended. In the present appeal the State Government rightly 
approached the question whether respondent l was a workman. Unless this 
condition is satisfied no reference can be made. [793-E-F] 
1.4. While deciding the question whether respondent 1 was a workman, 
D it took into cm1sideration the salary and allowances of respondent 1 drawn 
at the relevant time and also the nature of work. Respondent 1 was function-
ing as a Joint Secretary at the relevant time and his duties were to deal with 
all legal matters nnd court proceedings, labour and land laws and publica-
tions. Respondent 1 had power to sanction expenses incurred in litigation by 
E the appellant. The State Government rightly formed the opinion that 
respondent 1 was not a workman. [793-H; 794-A-B] 
1.5. Respondent 1 had not been able to show that while passing the 
above administrative order, State Government took into consider:ition any 
irrelevant or foreign matter. TI1e above administrative order was passed 
F by the State Government after taking into consideration material available 
on record and therefore, it could not be faulted. [794-C-D] 
State of Mad. v. C.P. Sarathy & Anr., (1953] 4 SCR 334; Prem Kakkar 
v. State of Haryana & Anr., [1976] 3 SCR 1010; Sultan Singh v. State of 
G Haryana & Anr., [1996] 2 sec 66, relied on. 
Abad Dairy Dudh Vitram Kendara Sanchalak Manda/ v. Abad Dairy 
& Ors., (1993) III LW (Suppl.) 1993, distinguished. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1041 of 
H 2000. 
/ 
_./ 
)' 
~ 
SECl'. INDIAN TEA ASSOCIATION v. AJIT KUMAR BARAT [PHl:KAN, J.] 789 
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.3.99 of the Calcutta High A 
Court in A.F.O. No. 5

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