- (1.)THIS petition by the Association of Engineering Workers of the third respondent-employer under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeks to challenge the letter/order dated 12th october, 1988 issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Bombay District, Bombay whereun-der he was of the opinion that it was not a fit and proper case for making a reference under Section 12 (5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Since a question of law has been raised before me, a few facts may be stated:
(2.)THERE was some dispute about the quantum of peace cum productivity reward resulting in willful slowing down of the performance of the workmen between the period 4th March 1982 and 10th June 1982. A charge-sheet was framed on September 29, 1982. In the enquiry which followed, the workmen did not participate effectively and on 30th December, 1982 an order of dismissal was passed. The whole controversy, all along, related to six out of about 150 workmen employed by the third respondent-employer. On a dispute being raised, conciliation proceedings were held and on 22nd July, 1983 a failure report was sent under Section 12 Sub-section (4) of the said Act. The workmen had claimed reinstatement with full back wages. On 10th August, 1983 the Deputy Commissioner of Labour held that there was no case for reference under sub-section (5) of Section 12. Writ petition No. 2202 of 1983 filed by the six workmen was allowed by this Court on 27th September, 1984. The order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour declining to make a reference under Sub-section (5) of Section 12 was set aside and he was directed to reconsider the demand of reference afresh and pass appropriate orders in a light of the observations made in the judgment within the period of four weeks thereof.
(3.)ON 23rd November, 1984, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour held that he was satisfied that there was still no case for reference to adjudication under Sub-section (5) of Section 12 as it was not expedient to do so for the three reasons set out in the order. Writ Petition No. 1533 of 1984 was filed in this Court challenging the said order dated 23rd November, 1984. It is true that the said Writ Petition was rejected on 28th July, 1988. However, on an appeal, the Division Bench held that the generalisation made by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour in his order could not be equated with the application of mind and it was incumbent for the said officer to have given some indication of the material on the basis of which she had come to the three conclusions for turning down the request for reference. It was held that the application of mind must be manifest in the order itself and a mere reiteration of the statutory or stereo type verbiage or generalisation does not make for the reasons of the order. The Division Bench took the view that though the deputy Commissioner was not called upon to write a detailed judgment, as do Courts of law, it was incumbent on her to have at least outlined the process of her reasoning by reference to the material before her. In the result the matter was sent back to the Deputy Commissioner of Labour with a direction to consider afresh the demand for reference. This was the second time that the matter was sent back by this Court on 28th July, 1988.