S.K.Dhaon, J. - (1.) A Mazdoor Sangh invokes the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in industrial disputes which are yet to be adjudicated upon by a certain Labour Court.
(2.) The State Government, in the purported exercise of powers under section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), on 19th Jan. 1984, by separate orders referred six separate industrial disputes concerning six individual workmen who, it appears, are the members of the petitioner Mazdoor Sangh for being decided by the Labour Court at Meerut. The dispute in each case is with M/s. Simbhaoli Sugar Mills Limited, the respondent 2 (hereinafter referred to as the employer. The employer on 10th Mar. 1984, made an application before the State Government for the transfer of the proceedings pending before the Labour Court at Meerut to the Labour Court at Ghaziabad. The State Government on 8th Aug. 1984, withdrew the six cases from the Labour Court at Meerut and transferred them to the Labour Court at Ghaziabad. The Mazdoor Sangh feels aggrieved; hence this petition.
(3.) Section 6-C of the Act confers power upon the State Government to transfer proceedings from one Labour Court to another Labour Court. The relevant portion of the said provision may be extracted here:- "The State Government may, by an order in writing for reasons to be recorded withdraw and transfer a proceeding from............." Has the State Government complied with the aforequoted provisions while passing the impugned order? Has the State Government recorded reasons in its order? The fate of this petition turns upon the decision of these two questions. We, therefore, immediately advert to the contents of the impugned order. The order has been passed by the Joint Secretary to the Government of Uttar Pradesh. The relevant portion of the order may be quoted : "The Government have gone through the transfer application of the employers/ applicant, written reply of the workers/ opposite party and heard arguments of both the parties. The comments of Deputy Labour Commissioner, Ghaziabad, on whose request these cases were referred to the Labour Court Meerut, were sought and considered. The Deputy Labour Commissioner, Ghaziabad has stated in his comments that because of extraneous pressure he was influenced to make request for reference of these cases to the Labour Court Meerut. The Government feel that it would be against the principles of natural justice if these cases are heard by the Labour Court Meerut.........." Normally, once an industrial dispute is referred for adjudication by the appropriate Government to a particular forum, that forum alone is in seisin of the matter referred to it and it alone should dispose of the same. It is now well settled that such a forum, be it a Court or a Tribunal, exercises quasi-judicial powers while adjudicating upon a reference made to it. The transfer of pending proceedings is a serious in road into the exercise of quasijudicial powers of a Tribunal or Court. The Legislature, therefore, has enjoined that the State Government must record its reasons before withdrawing a proceeding from one Court or Tribunal and transferring the same to other Court or Tribunal. The controversy as to whether the requirement of the statute that reasons should be recorded are directory or mandatory had been set at rest as far back as in the year 1960 when the Supreme Court gave its judgment in the case of Associated Electrical Industries India Pvt. Ltd. Calcutta v. Its Workmen (1961) 2 Lab LJ 122 : (AIR 1967 SC 284) . In this case the Supreme Court was dealing with a problem arising out of S. 33-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Central Act). The provisions in S. 6-C of the Act and the provisions contained in S. 33-B of the Central Act are in pari materia. The appropriate words in S. 33-B are. "The appropriate Government may, by an order in writing and for reasons to be stated." The Court observed : " ...........It is quite clear that the requirement about the statement of the reasons must be complied both in substance and in letter........." The Court emphasised that the power of transfer can be exercised only for "sufficient reasons.";