1960 (8) TMI 102 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Construction of Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
2. Discretion of the Government in referring industrial disputes under Section 12(5).
3. Validity of Government's refusal to refer the dispute for adjudication based on "go-slow" tactics by workmen.
4. Scope of judicial review over Government's decision under Section 12(5).

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Construction of Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947:
The main question was the interpretation of Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Section 12(5) requires the appropriate Government to consider the conciliation officer's report and decide whether there is a case for reference to a Board, Labour Court, Tribunal, or National Tribunal. If the Government does not make such a reference, it must record and communicate its reasons.

2. Discretion of the Government in referring industrial disputes under Section 12(5):
The judgment clarified that Section 12(5) confers wide discretion on the Government to either refer or refuse to refer an industrial dispute. This discretion must be exercised bona fide and based on relevant and material facts. The Government's power to make a reference under Section 12(5) is ultimately derived from Section 10(1) of the Act, which confers the power to refer disputes to the appropriate authorities.

3. Validity of Government's refusal to refer the dispute for adjudication based on "go-slow" tactics by workmen:
The Government refused to refer the dispute for adjudication, citing the workmen's "go-slow" tactics during the relevant year as the reason. The Supreme Court held that the reason given by the Government was extraneous and not germane to the issue. The Court emphasized that while considerations of expediency cannot be excluded, the Government must not act in a punitive spirit and must consider the question fairly and reasonably, taking into account only relevant facts and circumstances.

4. Scope of judicial review over Government's decision under Section 12(5):
The judgment established that a writ of mandamus would lie against the Government if its order under Section 12(5) is based on irrelevant or extraneous considerations. The Court noted that while the decision of the Government may be an administrative order, if the reasons for refusing to make a reference are extraneous and not germane, the Court can issue a writ of mandamus.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to issue a writ of mandamus against the Government, directing it to reconsider the question of making a reference under Section 12(5) without considering the "go-slow" tactics as a reason. The Court confirmed that the Government's refusal to refer the dispute was based on a consideration that was not germane and was extraneous. The appeals were dismissed with costs.