V. VEERARAJAN & ORS. versus GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.

Citation: [1987] 1 S.C.R. 997 · Decided: 14-01-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANGANATH MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

V. VEERARAJAN & ORS. 
v. 
GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU & ORS. 
JANUARY 14, l987 
[RANGANATH MISRA & M.M. DUTT, JJ.] 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Ss. JO & 12(5)-State Govern-
ment-Reference of dispute for adjudication-Fit case where reference 
should be made-What is. 
A large number of workmen of the respondent-company were 
proceeded against by the management on certain charges, Later most of 
them were taken back to employment. On failure of conciliation in 
regard to 7 of the dismissed workmen, disputes were raised under s. 
11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Government declined to 
make a reference to the Labour Court for adjudication, A Single Judge 
as well as the Division Bench rejected the Writ Petition of the workmen. 
On appeal, this Court on 9th July, 1985 set aside the judgments 
passed by the Single Judge and the Division Bench and directed the 
State Government to reconsider the matter without taking into account 
the ground that the domestic inquiry had been conducted by the emp-
loyer according to the principles of natural justice and the punishment 
imposed was not disproportionate to the gravity of the offence commit-
ted by the dismissed workmen and come to decision within 30 days 
whether it would make a reference of the industrial dispute to the 
Labour Court. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
The Government again declined to make a reference stating: (I) 
that the company manufactures and supplies certain items to the 
Defence Department; (2) that there was industrial unrest followed by 
violence and stoppage of work in the establishment due to inter-union 
rivalry; (3) that the management charge-sheeted the workmen under 
specific provisions of the standing order; ( 4) that the workmen 
themselves had admitted the charges against them; (5) that in view of G 
the proven charges and the need to preserve industrial peace in the 
establishment it was not a fit case for adjudication both on expediency 
and on mertis. 
When the appeal came up for further hearing, on behalf of the 
appellants-workmen it was contended that the grounds given in support H 
997 
998 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1987] l S.C.R. 
of the order are totally irrelevant, immaterial and do not justify the 
A 
A refusal to refer the dispute. 
On behalf of the respondents it was contended: (I) that the statute 
authorises the State to take a prima facie view of the matter for ascer-
taining whether it was a fit case wherein exercise of jurisdiction under Sec-
B tloo 10(1) read with 12(5) was called for and a reference was warranted; (2) 
). 
that the State Government in declining to make a reference has kept 
itself within the limit set by law; (3) that the grounds advanced in 
j 
support of refusal to make a referen~e were clearly tenable and indi-
J
cated that a broad and overall view of the matter was taken by the State 
~ 
Government; ( 4) that since the jurisdiction of this Court is not appellate 
c 
and order of the State Government is administrative in character, no 
interference was warranted; and (5) that ifthe grounds advanced by the 
State Government were neither germane nor relevant, the· matter 'f 
should go back to the State Government fC)r fresh disposal as it is not for 
this Court to direct a reference to be made. 
D 
Allowing the Appeal, 
HELD: I. I It is open to the State Government to take the broad 
features into consideration while exercising jurisdiction under s. I 0( I) 
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. If the dispute in question raises a 
~ 
question of law the appropriate Government should not purport to 
E reach a final conclusion on the said question of law because that would 
normally lie within the jurisdiction of ,the Industrial Tribunal. Simi-
larly, on disputed questions of fact, the appropriate Government can-
not purport to reach final conclusions for that again would be the 
~ 
province of the Industrial Tribunal. [10038; 1004A-B] 
r 
F 
1.2 S. IO permits appropriate Government to determine whether 
m.pnte 'exists or is apprehended' and then refer it for adjudication on merits. 
The demarcated functions are (1) reference, (2) adjudication. [ 1004F-G I 
1.3 There may be exceptional cases in which the State Govern-
ment may, on a proper examination of the demand, come to a conclu-
G sion that the demands are either perverse or frivolous and do not merit 
a reference. Government should be very slow to attempt an examination 
of the demand with a view to decline reference and Courts will always 
\ } 
be vi

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