2000 (2) TMI 868 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the respondent was a "workman" under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
2. Whether the State Government's refusal to refer the dispute to an Industrial Tribunal was justified.
3. The nature of the order passed by the State Government under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
4. Whether the High Court was correct in directing the State Government to make a reference.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the respondent was a "workman" under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947:

The respondent was employed as Joint Secretary of the Indian Tea Association and was dismissed for disobeying a transfer order. The respondent claimed to be a workman and sought redress under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The State Government examined the respondent's salary, allowances, and job responsibilities, concluding that the respondent was part of the management and not a workman. The Government's decision was based on the respondent's managerial and administrative duties and the power to sanction expenses, which excluded him from the definition of "workman" under Section 2(s) of the Act.

2. Whether the State Government's refusal to refer the dispute to an Industrial Tribunal was justified:

The State Government's refusal to refer the dispute was based on its determination that the respondent was not a workman. The Government's decision was challenged in the High Court, which directed the Government to make a reference. However, the Supreme Court held that the State Government had rightly formed the opinion that the respondent was not a workman based on the material on record, including the respondent's salary, allowances, and job responsibilities. The Supreme Court found no evidence that the State Government had considered any irrelevant or foreign material in making its decision.

3. The nature of the order passed by the State Government under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947:

The Supreme Court reiterated that the order of the State Government under Section 10(1) of the Act is an administrative order, not a judicial or quasi-judicial one. The Government's function in making a reference under Section 10(1) is administrative, involving subjective satisfaction based on the material before it. The Court cannot closely scrutinize the Government's order as if it were a judicial determination. The Supreme Court cited previous judgments, including State of Madras v. C.P. Sarathy and Prem Kakar v. State of Haryana, to support this view.

4. Whether the High Court was correct in directing the State Government to make a reference:

The Supreme Court held that both the learned single Judge and the appellate Court of the High Court erred in law by issuing a mandamus directing the State Government to make an appropriate reference. The Supreme Court found that the State Government had acted within its administrative capacity and had not considered any irrelevant or foreign material in its decision. The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the learned single Judge and the appellate Court, thereby allowing the appeal.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court concluded that the State Government had correctly determined that the respondent was not a workman and was justified in refusing to make a reference to an Industrial Tribunal. The High Court's direction to the State Government to make a reference was found to be erroneous. The appeal was allowed, and the judgments of the learned single Judge and the appellate Court were set aside. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.