Fazl Ali, J. - (1.) This is an appeal by the management of M/s Mahabir Jute Mills situated at Gorakhpore by a certificate granted by the High Court of Allahabad under Article 133 of the Constitution of India. M/s. Mahabir Jute Mills Mazdoor Sabha was formed some time in the year 1946 and soon thereafter when Shibban Lal Saxena one of the respondents was elected as President of the labour Union of the Mill disputes arose between the workers and the Company as a result of which Shibban Lal Saxena sent notice to the management on December 31, 1946 threatening a general strike. Thereafter several disputes arose between the parties which were sometimes settled, sometimes reopened and in this appeal we are not concerned with those matters. In the previous disputes the order of the management retrenching some workers was upheld by the Regional Conciliation Officer and against that Shibban Lal Saxena served a notice of strike listing 18 demands and calling upon the management to reinstate the retrenched workers and pay them bonus. This notice was given on March 31, 1954. On April,16, 1954 a total strike was launched and Shibban Lal Saxena left for China. During his absence it appears that the management arrived at some sort of settlement with the working President of the Union and the dispute for the time being was resolved on July 11, 1954. Shibban Lal Saxena, however, returned from China and with his re-entry into the Union matters assumed serious proportions and the disputes reached a high pitch. Mr.Saxena is alleged to have excited the workers and wanted to re-open the agreement reached between the management and the working President of the Union on July 11, 1954. He also started an agitation and the workers responded to the go-slow call given by Mr. Saxena as a result of which the production of the Company came down from 500 cuts to 300 cuts resulting in huge losses to the Company as alleged by the management. It is further alleged that Mr. Saxena had delivered a number of inflammatory speeches as a result of which the management charge-sheeted two workers for willful jamming of bobbins in the Spinning Section as a result of which the spinning work came to a stop. On January 4, 1955 the management held an inquiry against the two workers and three other workers who appeared to be in sympathy with them were also charge-sheeted for their stay-in-strike. This strike -continued right up to January 13, 1955 in spite of the efforts of the management to arrive at a settlement. This was followed by a charge-sheet which was served by the management on various workers on February 5,1955. Mr Saxena protested to the management saying that the charge-sheets were absolutely baseless. A notice was put on the main gate of the Mill on February 22, 1955 informing that an inquiry would be held on February 25, 1955 and after inquiry which the respondents described as a mere farce a large number of workers were served dismissal notices. It appears that out of 1000 workers all of them had been dismissed from service but 200 workers who apologised were reinstated and taken back. In view of these developments the Union invoked jurisdiction of the Regional Conciliation Officer under clause 4(l) of the Government Notification dated July 14, 1954 passed under Section 3 of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. A Conciliation Board consisting of the Additional Regional Conciliation Officer as the Chairman and Shibban Lal Saxena and Shri Arora, representing the labour and the management respectively as members was constituted. The Conciliation Board heard the case but unfortunately no settlement could be arrived at. Consequently the reports of the members of the Board forwarded to the Labour Commissioner were placed before the Government, Mr. P. C. Kulshreshtha, the Additional Regional Conciliation Officer and Chairman of the Board sent a secret report to the Labour Commissioner recommending that the allegations made by the workers against the management were baseless and should not be entertained. After considering the reports, the Government of U. P. by its order dated February 28, 1956 refused to make a reference to the Industrial Tribunal on the ground that it was not expedient to do so. There was some controversy before the Single Judge of the High Court on the question as to when the order of the Government was received by the workers and the High Court accepted the plea of the workers that there was sufficient delay in communicating the order of the Government to the workers as a result of which a writ petition was filed before the High Court after a year and a half. But the High Court found that the petitioners were not guilty of laches. This matter is a closed issue and need not detain us.
(2.) A writ petition was eventually filed on May 15, 1958 for quashing the order of the Government dated February 28, 1956 and for directing a fresh reference. The writ petition was allowed by the order of the Single Judge dated October 7, 1963. Thereafter the management went up in special appeal to the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court which decided the appeal on May 8, 1972 and quashed the order of the Government and directed it to reconsider the same in the light of the observations made by the High Court. It would thus appear that this writ petition was pending in the High Court for as many as fourteen years with the result that a strange situation has developed today. By the time the appeal has been heard by this Court more than seventeen years have elapsed when the impugned order of the Government was passed and almost twenty years after the management had dismissed 800 workers. It is said that the management after dismissed of the old workers had appointed new workers who had by now put in about twenty years of service. We are constrained to observe that labour matters should have been given top urgency and should not have been allowed to be prolonged for such a long period in the High Court, otherwise the inordinate delay results in a situation causing embarrassment both to the Court and to the parties. It is, therefore, very necessary and in the fitness of things that such matters. should be given top priority and should be disposed of by the High Court within a year of the presentation of the petition.
(3.) The learned Single Judge while allowing the petition set aside the order of the Government and directed the Government to make a reference to the Industrial Tribunal after ignoring the secret report sent by the Assistant Regional Conciliation Officer. Another reason which the Single Judge gave was that as the order of the Government did not state any reasons and was not a speaking order it was legally invalid and was fit to be quashed. The Division Bench of the High Court in appeal has not accepted, and in our opinion, rightly, this part of the order of the High Court which was set aside. The Division Bench held as the order of the Government was purely an administrative order, unless there was any provision which required the Government to give reasons for the order, the same could not be vitiated for the absence of the reasons. The High Court observed thus: "The function of the Government is administrative. In law administrative decisions are not generally required to be accompanied by a statement of reasons. There is nothing in the Industrial Disputes Act or the notification aforesaid requiring the State Government to state its reasons in support of its conclusions. There was nothing particular in the present case impelling the issuance of such a direction to the State Government." We find ourselves in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court on this point. In a diverse society such as ours the Government has to work through several administrative agencies which have got a very wide sphere and if every administrative order is required to give reasons it will bring the governmental machinery to a standstill. It is well settled that while the rules of natural justice would apply to administrative proceedings, it is not necessary that the administrative orders should be speaking orders unless the statute specifically enjoins such a requirement. But we think it desirable that such orders should contain reasons when they decide matters affecting lights of parties. The Division Bench of the High Court However has set aside the order of the Government refusing to make a reference to the Industrial Tribunal and directed it to reconsider the matter on the following three grounds: (1) that the Government took into consideration the secret report which has seriously prejudiced and coloured its decision; (2) that in accordance with the principle of natural justice the Regional Conciliation Officer should have shown the secret report to the other members of the Conciliation Board so that they may have an opportunity to rebut the same; and (3) that the Government order was based purely on the secret report sent by the Additional Regional Conciliation Officer as also the report of the Labour Commissioner. In the aforesaid order of the Division Bench of the High Court certain mandatory directions have been given to the Government to ignore the secret report as also the report of the Labour Commissioner and to consider the reports of the other members of the Conciliation Board, namely, Shibban Lal Saxena and Mr. Arora. The Division Bench of the High Court has, however, granted the certificate of fitness by its order dated April 9, 1973.;