9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Government's refusal to refer the industrial dispute to the Industrial Tribunal. 2. Application of the principles of natural justice to the Conciliation Board's proceedings. 3. Legality of the High Court's directions to the Government regarding the consideration of reports. 4. Consequences of the High Court's order on subsequent Government actions. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Government's Refusal to Refer the Industrial Dispute: The main issue was whether the Government's order refusing to refer the industrial dispute to the Industrial Tribunal was valid. The High Court had set aside the Government's order on three grounds: the consideration of a secret report, the violation of natural justice principles, and the reliance on the secret report and the Labour Commissioner's report. However, the Supreme Court found that there was no reliable material to show that the Government's order was based mainly on the secret report or the Labour Commissioner's report. The Government had considered all relevant aspects, including the reports from the Conciliation Board, the Labour Commissioner, and other surrounding circumstances. The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court's finding that the Government's order was based solely on the secret report was not sustainable. 2. Application of the Principles of Natural Justice to the Conciliation Board's Proceedings: The High Court had held that the principles of natural justice were violated because the secret report was not shown to the other members of the Conciliation Board. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the Conciliation Board's function was exploratory and aimed at bringing about an amicable settlement. The Board had conducted a full investigation, heard the parties, and framed issues. There was no requirement in the relevant notification or the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act for the members to show their reports to one another. Therefore, the Supreme Court found no violation of natural justice principles in the proceedings of the Conciliation Board. 3. Legality of the High Court's Directions to the Government: The High Court had directed the Government to ignore the secret report and the Labour Commissioner's report and to consider the reports of the other members of the Conciliation Board. The Supreme Court held that the High Court had no jurisdiction to direct the Government on how to exercise its statutory discretion under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. The Government was entitled to consider all relevant materials, including the secret report and the Labour Commissioner's report. The Supreme Court quashed the High Court's order, stating that the High Court could only ask the Government to reconsider its decision but could not dictate the manner in which the Government should exercise its discretion. 4. Consequences of the High Court's Order on Subsequent Government Actions: Following the High Court's order, the Government had made a reference to the Industrial Tribunal. The Supreme Court observed that this reference was based on the High Court's directions and not on an independent decision by the Government. Since the High Court's order was quashed, the subsequent Government order making the reference to the Industrial Tribunal also fell. The Supreme Court clarified that the Government retained the discretion to make a fresh reference to the Industrial Tribunal if it deemed it necessary in the future. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the High Court's order dated April 9, 1973, and set aside the Government's order dated February 6, 1973, for making a reference to the Industrial Tribunal. The Court emphasized that the Government had the discretion to make a reference under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act if it found it necessary in changed circumstances. No order as to costs was made.
|
