Ranganath Misra, J. - (1.) 154 workmen were proceeded against by the management of Lucas-T.V.S Limited, Madras, for wilful disobedience of lawful orders of superiors, acts subversive of good and proper behaviour within the establishment after authorised hours of work without permission and shouting of slogans within the establishment amounting to misconduct under Standing Orders. Later 134 of them were taken back to employment. In regard to 7 of the dismissed workmen conciliation was undertaken and upon its failure, disputes raised under S. 11 -A of the Industrial Disputes Act were asked to be referred to the Labour Court for adjudication. When Government declined to make a reference, the High Court was moved. The learned single Judge rejected the writ petition and the Division Bench upheld such rejection. This appeal by special leave is against the order of the Division Bench of the High Court.
(2.) This Court on July 9,1985 after hearing counsel for parties came to the conclusion: "Now it is clear from the order made by the State Government on 11th October, 1979 which order has been reaffirmed by the State Govt. by its order dated 3rd May, 1981, that the only ground on which the State Government refused to make a reference of the dispute to the labour Court was that, in its opinion, the domestic inquiry had been conducted by the 3rd respondent (employer) according to the principles of natural justice and the punishment imposed by the 3rd respondent on the appellants was not disproportionate to the gravity of the offence committed by them. This is also borne out from paragraph 6 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the 1st respondent where it has been clearly stated that the Labour Department of the Government of Tamil Nadu opined that the management had conducted a fair and proper inquiry and also taken in consideration the gravity of the offence before dismissing the appellants and the punishment imposed on the appellants was not disproportionate having regard to the nature of the charges proved against them. This ground on which the State Government has acted in refusing to refer the dispute to the Labour Court is clearly an irrelevant round. It is now settled law as a result of the decisions of this Court in Workmen of Syndicate Bank, Madras v. Govt. of India, 11985) 1 Lab LJ 93 and Ramawatar Sharma v. State of Haryana, (1985) 1 SCALE 713 that the appropriate Government cannot decline to make reference of an industrial dispute arising out of the termination of the service of a workman on the ground that the domestic inquiry resulting in the termination of the service of the workman was in the opinion of the State Government in conformity with the principles of natural justice and that the punishment imposed on the workman was not disproportionate to the offence with which he was charged ..............." "We would therefore have ordinarily allowed the appeal and set aside the judgments of the learned single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court and directed the State Government to make a reference of the industrial dispute between the appellants and the 3rd respondent. But Dr. Chitale appearing on behalf of the 3rd respondent urged that there might be some other relevant grounds which may still be required to be considered by the State Government before deciding whether to make a reference or not and the case should therefore go back to the State Government to reconsider the question in the same manner in which this Court directed the State Government to reconsider in the Workman of Syndicate Bank case (supra). But this is a case in which more than 7 years have elapsed since the appellants were dismissed from service and they are still nowhere near a reference. We would therefore set aside the judgments passed by the learned single Judge and the Division Bench and direct the State Government to reconsider the matter without taking into account the aforesaid irrelevant ground and come to a decision within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order whether it would make a reference of the industrial dispute to the Labour Court. We would keep the appeal pending before us and as soon as the decision is reached by the State Government, which of course should be within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order by the State Government, intimation of such decision shall be given to the Court so that the Court canthen consider whether the decision reached by the State Government is legally Justified or not. We are informed that V. Kondiah the 2nd appellant has already settled the dispute with the 3rd respondent and therefore the question of making a reference of the dispute will have to be considered by the State Government only in regard to the remaining 6 appellants."
(3.) After the matter went back the State Government has made the following order: "Accordingly the Government have reexamined the conciliation report first read above and all other connected relevant records and consider that it is not necessary to refer the cases of Thiruvalargal K. Arinathan, A. C. Kabaleswaran, V. Srinivasan, V. Veerarajan, P. Subramanian and H. Indirarajan for adjudication both on merits and on expediency for the following reasons: (1) Lucas-T.V.S. Limited are suppliers of some items to the Defence. (2) There was industrial unrest followed by violence and stoppage of work in this establishment in 1977 due to inter unionrivalry. Again there was industrial unrest due to inter union rivalry in this establishment in 1978 employing 2400 workmen. To avoid recurrence of such incidence and stoppage of work again in 1978 the Management took disciplinary action against 154 workmen. The Management took back 134 workmen out of 154. The seven workmen are among those who were dismissed considering the gravity of the offence. (3) The Management charge-sheeted these seven workmen under the specific provisions of the standing orders for misconduct such as wilful disobedience of lawful orders of the superiors, acts or subversive of good and proper behaviour within the establishment, being within the establishment after authorised hours of work without permission shouting slogans within the establishment etc. (4) All the workmen admitted the charges framed against them during the enquiries and hence the Management dismissed them from service based on these enquiries and taking into account their past services. (5) Since the workmen themselves have admitted the charges against them. The Government consider that the charges have been proved. (6) The Government also considered the nature of proven charges and the quantum of punishment imposed on them with a view to decide the question whether the reference should be made or not. (7) Considering the proven charges and the need to preserve industrial peace in the establishment the Government consider that this is not a fit case for adjudication both on expediency and on merits. No action is considered necessary in respect of the case of Thiru A. Kondaiah who has settled his accounts finally with Management.";