- (1.) D. P. Singh, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THIS writ petition is directed against six identical reference orders wherein the facts and the question of law involved are the same. The petitioner firm is engaged in manufacture of glass bottles. The workman employed in different capacities struck work from 7-7-1987 on the ground that employers have declared a lock out. This situation gave rise to a reference under Section 4-K of the U. P. Industrial Dispute Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as to whether the lock out declared by the employer was justified. The said reference was registered as Adjudication Case No 147 of 1978. During the pendency of the adjudication case, the names of the respondent-workmen had been struck off from the companies' rolls. As they had failed to join duties in spite of notices to that effect by the employer. As adjudication case was already pending, applications under Section 6-F of the Act were filed by the workmen challenging the action of the employer. In the adjudication case pending before the Labour Court, the authorised representative of the workmen, who was Secretary of the Union, which spoused the cause of the workmen, made a written application that the workmen do not want to press their claim and in fact they themselves had abandoned their employment. It was also alleged in the application that no lock out was declared by the management. In the proceedings under Section 6-F also, similar applications were moved by the Secretary of the union. The Labour Court acting upon the aforesaid application decided the dispute against the workmen. The applications under Section 6-F of the Act moved by the workmen were also rejected. Both the aforesaid order, in the adjudication case and in the cases under Section 6-F were duly published in the gazette. However, after publication of the said award, the respondent workmen made review applications in both the cases seeking the recall of the order already passed on 17-4-1979. The petitioners filed their objection and thereafter vide order dated 20-7-1979, the recall/review applications of the workmen were rejected. It appears that thereafter approached the Conciliation Officer claiming reinstatement and back wages. On a report of the Conciliation Officer, the State Government vide its order dated 29-10-1980 having found that there was no merit in the case, refused to refer it for adjudication. Again the workmen applied for reference of dispute but it met the same fate vide order dated 8-5-1981. It is alleged by the petitioner that on the specific direction of the Minister, the Joint Secretary vide his order dated 20-10-1981 referred the case for adjudication to the Labour Court-V, Meerut. All the aforesaid six reference orders are under challenge in this writ petition. The main argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the second reference on same set of facts as in the present case, was bad. A supplementary contention is also made that the exercise of power by the Joint Secretary was solely at the behest and on the direction of the Minister, therefore, it amounted to colourable exercise of power. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further urged that in the facts of the present case, the petitioners ought to have been heard before referring the dispute for adjudication.
(3.) WHILE mentioning the facts it has already been noted that after rejection of the review application, the workmen had approached the Conciliation Officer, who had submitted a failure report to the State Government. The State Government by its order dated 29-10-1980, which is Annexure-14 to the writ petition, found that there was no merit in the cause to be referred for adjudication. It appears that again a representation was made to the Government to refer the dispute. Again by order dated 8-5-1981 the Government having found that there was no merit, rejected the prayer for making such reference. This order is also annexed as Annexure-15 to the writ petition. The petitioner has in paragraphs 22 to 25 of the writ petition stated that the Labour Minister on representation of the workmen had endorsed on 22-9-1981 to the Labour Secretary for making the reference. This order was followed by another endorsement on the said representation on 25-9-1981. On 20-10-1981, the Joint Secretary passed the following order: "in SABHI WADON KO MANTRI JI KE ADESHON KE ANUSAR AUDHYOGIK NYAYADHIKARAN (V) MEERUT KO ABHI NIRNAY HETU BHEJ DIYA JAI. Sd. Joint Secretary 20-10-1981". It is alleged in paragraph 25 of the writ petition that this direction led to the registering of the adjudication cases No. 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69 and 70 of 1981 by the Labour Court-V, Meerut. The State Government has filed a counter-affidavit sworn by Triyugi Narain, an official of the labour department. These allegations and the notings, as referred to above and as mentioned in the writ petition, have not been denied. However, the counsel for the workmen has urged that it was within the right of the Minister to make such endorsement as it involved his own department. In fact, he urged, the Minister was under an obligation to issue such directions, where he found that injustice has been done to the cause of the workmen. It cannot be denied that the Minister could have directed the Labour Secretary or any competent labour authority to consider the claim of the workmen. It also cannot be denied that the Labour Secretary or the competent authority could consider such an endorsement or request of the Minister while exercising his power under the statute. But it also cannot be denied that in the Indian democratic governance and the rules of business applicable to the Government, it is the Secretary who acts in the name and on behalf of the Government. The statute gives discretion to such an authority to apply is independent mind and reach a conclusion of his own volition. But if the authority obligates its discretion or responsibility in favour of any other authority or individual or it acts solely on the dictates of even a superior authority, the exercise of such discretion or responsibility would stand vitiated.;