R.L. Gulati, J. - (1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution relates to an industrial dispute between the Roadways Central Workshop, Kanpur and its employees. It may be stated here that the Roadways Central Workshop is a State owned enterprise. The petitioner is a Union called "Central Regional Workshop Karamchari Sangh". Some dispute arose between the petitioner Union and respondent No. 2, the Chief Mechanical Engineer. Roadways Central Workshop, Kanpur, as far back as in 1964. The State of Uttar Pradesh on December 2. 1964. referred six disputes to the permanent Conciliation Board. Lucknow for investigation and settlement. This reference was registered as P. C. B. Case No. 13 of 1964, Dispute No. 4 was in respect of the workmen who were initially work-charged-monthly paid, but had been converted into regular workmen. The demand was that as from 1-4-1961 those workmen should be given the benefit of their earlier services and should be paid retrenchment compensation and given other benefits under the Act. It appears, that the permanent Conciliation Board could not bring about an agreed settlement. It nevertheless made a report to the State Government containing certain recommendations. Those recommendations, were however not implemented and the petitioner made a grievance on that account and submitted several representations to the Government. On 21-2-1969 the petitioner submitted an application before respondent No. 1, the State Government, praying that Demand No. 4, in P. C. B. Case No. 13 of the 1964 be referred for adjudication under Section 4-K of the U.P., Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Several representations were thereafter made, but no decision was taken upon that application. Accordingly the present petition was moved in this Hon'ble Court on 18-7-1969 when the Standing Counsel was directed to find out as to why the State Government did not pass any order on the application of the petitioner dated 21-2-1969 and when it proposed to pass an order. It appears that thereafter the State Government passed an order dated August 16, 1969 rejecting the request of the Union to refer the dispute for adjudication under Section 4-K of the Industrial Disputes Act. This writ petition is directed against that order and prays that a mandamus be issued directing the first respondent, namely, the State of Uttar Pradesh, to refer the dispute for adjudication under Section 4-K of the Industrial Disputes Act.
(2.) Section 4-K provides that where the State Government is of opinion that any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended, it may at any time by order in writing refer the dispute etc. to a Labour Court or to a Tribunal. It has been argued that the question as to whether the State Government would or would not refer a dispute for adjudication under this section depends upon the subjective satisfaction of the State Government and therefore the order refusing to make a reference is an administrative order not amenable to the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. This contention in my opinion, has no force. There is a series of decisions of the Supreme Court in which it has been held that a decision of an appropriate Government to make or not to make a reference of an industrial dispute for adjudication may be administrative in character, but if the Government refused to make a reference on considerations which are extraneous and not germane then the Court can issue a writ of mandamus even in respect of such an administrative order.
(3.) In State of Bombay v. K.P. Krishnan, A.I.R. 1960 SC 1223 the Supreme Court after examining the scheme of the relevant provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act 14 of 1947. held that Section 10 (1) of that Act conferred wide discretion on the Government either to refer or to refuse to refer an industrial dispute, but the discretion, wide though it was. had to be exercised by the Government bona fide and on a consideration of relevant and material facts. It was further held that if the refusal to make reference was based upon mala fide considerations or extraneous or irrelevant considerations, the High Court could issue a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution. The same view has been reiterated in Bombay Union of Journalists v. State of Bombay, A.I.R. 1964 SC 1617 and Western India Watch Co. Ltd. v. Western India Watch Co. Workers Union, A.I.R. 1970 SC 1205 .;