Yashodanandan, J. - (1.) The Indian Explosives Limited is a public Limited Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, and is engaged in the business or manufacture and sale of explosives and fertilisers. The petitioner before us is its Fertilizer Division having its factory at Panki, Kanpur. By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner prays for writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ, direction or order to quash and or set aside the Reference Order made by respondent No. 1, the State of Uttar Pradesh, dated 6th September, 1977, and the order of respondent No 2, the Industrial Tribunal III, Uttar Pradesh, Kanpur, dated 18th December, 1978 disposing of certain issues framed as a consequence of the written statement filed by the petitioner raising certain preliminary objections.
(2.) The material facts on the basis of which this petition is based are that disciplinary proceedings were commenced by the petitioner against 16 of its workmen, 11 of whom having been impleaded as respondents 4 to 14 in this petition. The workmen did not appear at the domestic enquiry and consequently on the basis of the ex parte findings recorded during enquiry proceedings, orders for dismissal were passed against all the 16 workmen. An industrial dispute having been raised, by an order dated 12th June, 1973 respondent No. 1, referred to the Industrial Tribunal 1, Allahabad, certain issues between the petitioner and its workmen including the propriety of the dismissal of the aforesaid 16 workmen. During the pendency of the aforesaid reference, the petitioner and its workmen entered into what has been described as a "Settlement" on the 16th July, 1973 duly signed by the parties including the dispute regarding the dismissal of the 16 workmen. The settlement, inter alia, provided that the question whether the termination of the services of the aforesaid 16 workmen was justified and or legal would be referred to Sri B. B. Lal, Adviser to the Governor, U. P. and "his findings will be binding on both the parties. The so-called Settlement further provided that both the parties would submit a petition to the State Government to withdraw the Adjudication Case No. 4570 dated 12th June, 1973 in respect of issues covering dismissal and lay-off of the workmen aggrieved. The Settlement is purported to have been registered in accordance with the requirement of Section 6 B (3) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the 31st July, 1973. Pursuant to the joint application by the petitioner and its workmen, respondent No. 1 by means of an order dated 27th August, 1973, withdrew the dispute referred to it from the Tribunal seized of the Reference. Nonetheless, perhaps because the order of the State Government had not been communicated to the Industrial Tribunal, it passed an ex parte Award dated 27th August, 1973 to the effect that the petitioner was Justified in dismissing the 16 workmen. On the 25th September, 1977, the Government of Uttar Pradesh stayed the enforcement of the above mentioned Award and subsequently on the 26th September, 1973 rejected the same. Sri B. B. Lal started reviewing the orders regarding the dismissal of the 16 workmen as contemplated by the Settlement relied upon by the petitioner. It is stated that the hearings held by Sri B.B. Lal on various dates the representatives of the petitioner as well as 16 workmen affected, the Labour Union and also the Labour Department of the Government of Uttar Pradesh were present. It is alleged that the 16 workmen including respondents Nos. 4 to 14 and the Union (respondent No. 3) which has espoused their cause, unreservedly participated in the proceedings and raised an objection to the competence or jurisdiction of Shri B. B. Lal to decide the matter referred. On the 8th November, 1973, Sri B. B Lal passed an order giving findings regarding the dispute and held that the dismissal of 11 out of the 16 workmen was justified and orders of dismissals for the remaining workmen were to be modified. Sri Lal recommended that the management should pay 1/3rd of basic wages and dearness allowance for the period of lay-off as an ex gratia payment. It is claimed that the petitioner fully implemented and gave effect to the findings of Sri B. B. Lal, which, according to the Settlement, were binding on all parties, Five of the employees, who had been dismissed, were reinstated and the petitioner did not reinitiate proceedings against one of the workmen and also accepted recommendation of Sri Lal and paid the workmen who had been laid-off l/3rd of their wages as ex gratia amount. Respondent Nos. 3 to 14, who remained dissatisfied with the order of Sri Lal filed a writ petition in this Court which was dismissed as being premature. Respondent No. 1 having been moved by respondent No. 3 to make a reference under Section 4-K of the Act of an industrial dispute relating to dismissal of respondent Nos. 4 to 14 rejected the representation on the ground that the Award of Sri B. B. Lal was final and binding on the parties. Respondent Nos. 3 to 14 thereupon filled in this Court Misc. Writ Petition No. 6004 of 1974 challenging the decision of the State Government refusing to make a reference of the dispute. It is alleged that in that writ petition a counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of the Government of Uttar Pradesh wherein the stand was taken that the findings given by Sri B. B. Lal were binding on both the parties to the dispute and since some of the workmen had already availed of the benefits given by Sri Lal it was not open to the petitioner to challenge the remaining part of the findings which went against the workmen. On the 22nd August, 1977, an application was made by the petitioner in Misc. Writ Petition No. 6004 of 1974 that it may be dismissed as 'not pressed' since the workmen had been given an assurance by the then Labour Minister that their case would be referred for adjudication to the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal. On the same day consequently this Court dismissed the aforesaid writ petition in terms of the application made on behalf of the writ petitioner. On the 6th September, 1977, the Government of Uttar Pradesh made the impugned Reference under Section 4K of the Act to respondent No. 2 regarding the dismissal of 11 workmen, i.e., respondents Nos. 4 to 14. The petitioner filed a written statement raising number of preliminary objections and subsequently on the 8th November, 1978 made an application for amendment of its written statement by adding additional ground. The application for amendment was rejected by the Tribunal but ultimately this Court by an order dated 2nd May, 1979, allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the order of the Tribunal refusing to permit amendment to the written statement and directed the Tribunal to allow the amendment application. By means of the order dated 18th December, J979, which is under challenge in this petition, respondent No. 2 rejected the preliminary objection of the petitioner that the order of Reference is bad in law. The two preliminary issues decided against the petitioner were framed as follows: (1) Whether the present dispute is not an industrial dispute in view of the objections raised by the employers in paragraph-57 of their written statement and (2) Whether the Order of Reference is bad in law in view of the objections raised by the employers in paragraph-57 and paragraph 56-A of their written statement.
(3.) In view of the Supreme Court decisions in Western India Match Co. Ltd. v. The Western India Match Co. Workers Union 1970-II L.L.J. 256, Binny Ltd. v. Their Workmen 1972-I L.LJ. 478 and Avon Services Production Agencies v. Industrial Tribunal, Haryana 1979--I L.L.J. 1, Sri Soli Sorabji did not contend that once the Government had declined to exercise its power under Section 4-K of the Act it had no jurisdiction left on a reconsideration of matter to, at a later stage, make a reference under that provision. He also did not contend and in our view rightly so that it is necessary for the Government to hear the management or the workmen concerned in some form or the other before making a reference in the first instance itself. He, however, contended that once the Government had refused to make a reference because either in its opinion there was no industrial dispute or it was not expedient to made one, the employer could act on the expectation that there would be a quietus and to proceed to arrange his affairs on that basis and if the Government in respect of the same dispute altered its mind at a later stage, it was incumbent on it to bring to the notice of the management the material on which it proposed to make a reference and to take into consideration the management's version before taking a decision to refer the dispute for adjudication He relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in A. K. Kraipak v. Union of India MANU/SC/0427/1969 , AIR1970 SC 150 , (1969 )2 SCC262 , [1970 ]1 SCR457 Smt. Meneka Gandhi v. Union of India A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 587 and Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 875 for the contention that the principles of natural justice were attracted even to an administrative decision if the Civil rights of a party were affected or his or its legitimate expectations were jeopardised. He submitted that in the Western India Match Co., Ltd., Binny Ltd.,, and The Avon Services Production Agencies cases this question had neither been raised nor decided by the Supreme Court, He pressed in aid the judgments if the Madras High Court in K. Abdul Salam and Co. v. State of Tamil Nadu 1973 43 F.J.R. 180, decided by Rama Prasad Rao, J., Tiruchi Rolling Mills v. Gnansumounnidan (1974) 46 F.J.R. 158 decided by K. Veeraswami, C J., and Vardarajan, J. Shanthi Theatre (P.) Ltd. Madras v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. (1974) 55 F.J.R. 389, G. Matukrishnan v. The Administrative Manager, New Horizon Sugar Mills Pvt. 1980-I L.L.J. 215 decided by a Full Bench consisting of Ramaprasad Rao (sic) and Rimanujam, JJ. and American Express Intel national Banking Corporation v. Union of India and Ors. (1979) 39 F.L.R. 122 decided by Manas, Nath Roy, J., which do support his contention.;