- (1.) The petitioner raised an industrial dispute and his prayer for referring the same to the Labour Court was declined by the Deputy Secretary (Home), Chandigarh Administration, Chandigarh, with the following observations : "No evidence or law point has been produced before me from where it be considered that the report of the Inquiry Officer was not correct and the workman was not negligent and careless in his duties. The allegations of carelessness and negligence in the circumstances of the case stand proved. He has been given a minor punishment though the misconduct committed by him was quite serious. In view of all this, I do not find any merit in the demand raised by the Union and as such I dismiss the demand notice dated 21.5.1984." It is this order which has been impugned in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the Workers Union.
(2.) The case stands squarely covered by a recent decision of the Supreme Court in Workmen of Syndicate Bank, Madras v. Govt. of India and another, 1985 AIR(SC) 1667 wherein a similar order of the Government was quashed, observing thus : "We are of the view that the ground on which the Govt. of India has refused to refer the dispute relating to the imposition of punishment of stoppage of three increments of Shri Murugavelu to the Industrial Tribunal is not a valid ground. It would not be right for the Govt. of India to refuse to make the reference on the ground that the charges of misconduct against the worker were proved during a duly constituted departmental inquiry and penalty was imposed on the worker after following the required procedure. If such a ground were permissible it would be the easiest thing for the management to avoid a reference to adjudication and to deprive the worker of the opportunity of having the dispute referred for adjudication even if the order holding the charges of misconduct proved was unreasonable or perverso or was actuated by mala fides or even if the penalty imposed on the worker was totally disproportionate to the offence said to have been proved. The management has simply to show that it has held a proper inquiry after complying with the requisite procedure and that would be enough to defeat the worker claim for adjudication. Such a situation cannot be countenanced by law. We must, therefore, set aside the order dated 2.4.1981 passed by the Govt. of India declining to make a reference of the industrial dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal."
(3.) The learned counsel for respondent No. 3 on the other hand, relying on State of Bombay (now Maharashtra in C.A. No. 37 of 1957 (2) Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. in C.A. No. 38 of 1957 v. K.P. Krishan & others.,1950 AIR(SC) 1223 (in both the appeals) contended that the Government was within its authority to decline the reference if it was found that the workman had no case on merits. Reliance for this contention was placed on the following passage in K.P. Krishan's case : "It would be open to the Government to consider the other relevant facts which may come to its knowledge or which may be brought to its notice, and it is in the light of all these relevant facts that it has to come to its decision whether a reference should be made or not. The problem which the Government has to consider while acting under Section 12(5)(a) is whether there is a case for reference. This expression means that Government must first consider whether a prima facie case for reference has been made on the merits. If the Government comes to the conclusion that a prima facie case for reference has been made then it would be open to the Government also to consider whether there are any other relevant or material facts which would justify its refusal to make a reference. The question as to whether a case for reference has been made out can be answered in the light of all the relevant circumstances which would have a bearing on the merits of a case as well as on the incidental question as to whether a reference should nevertheless be made or not. A discretion to consider all relevant facts which is conferred on the Government by Section 10(1) could be exercised by the Government even in dealing with cases under Section 12(5) provided of course the said discretion is exercised bonafide, its final decision is based on a consideration of relevant facts and circumstances, and the second part of Section 12(5) is complied with." Great stress was laid by the learned counsel on the words "that the Government must first consider whether a prima facie case for reference has been made on the merits." The matter before the Government in an application under Section 12 or 10 of the Act is whether there exists an industrial dispute which may be referred to the Labour Court. The decision of the Government on the merits has to be in this regard and not on the merits of the rights of the workman or the validity of the order passed against him by the Management. As observed later on in the said case in paragraph 12 the Government may be justified in refusing to make a reference if it is satisfied that the notice given is frivolous or vexatious or that reference would be inexpedient. But as held in Workmen of Syndicate Bank's case it would not be open to the Govt. to decline reference on going into the merits of the case of the workmen and by recording a finding that the order passed by the management was justified on the facts proved. The learned counsel for the respondent also relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in M.P. Irrigation Karamchari Sangh v. The State of M.P. and another, 1985 1 LLJ 519but we do not find anything said therein which may be of some help to him. The impugned order, Annexure P-3, is consequently quashed and the case is sent back to respondent No. 1 for passing a fresh order in accordance with law. No costs. D.V.Sehgal, J.;