: The Government have examined the conciliation report of the Labour Officer first cited In regard to an industrial dispute raised by Thiru A. Kondiah and 6 others against the Management of Lucas TVS Limited, Madras-50 over the issue relating to the non-employment and they pass the following orders:
2. It is seen that the enquiries were conducted adhering to the principles of natural justice and that the punishment imposed is not disproportionate to the gravity of the offence committed.
3. Hence the government consider that there is no case to refer the issue in dispute for adjudication.
We find that the order had given reasons even with regard to the question whether the punishment imposed is disproportionate or not to the gravity of the offence committed. Thus, we find there is enough compliance of Section 12(5) of the Act. It is needless to state, as also pointed out by the learned Judge, whose order is appealed against, that there is no mandate in law that the government shall write a judgment as such summarising the respective cases of the parties, its analysis of the circumstances, its reasoning and its conclusion. According to the citations brought to our notice and quoted earlier, the only mandate is that the government ought to have considered all the relevant circumstances; nowhere has it been laid that the government should write a judgment as such. It is not the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants that the government was influenced by irrelevant materials or circumstances. On the other hand, his argument was that the government failed to take into consideration all relevant circumstances, the most important one being the discrimination. Further, we have to point out that it is enough that the records of the government fairly indicate that the government had considered all relevant materials before it passed the Impugned order. We have also had occasion to go through the files. Indeed, we have already made reference to certain pages. In our considered opinion, we are confident that the government had taken into consideration all the relevant factors before it passed the impugned order. It is essential at this stage to refer to the fact that in the impugned order though there is a reference to the letter dt. 31.7.1979 from the Commissioner 6f Labour, the order does not refer to the failure report submitted by the Commissioner of Labour on 30.8.1979. But it is relevant to notice that the said report is found in the file produced by the learned government advocate. This will clearly show that the government did take into consideration not only the report filed by the Labour Officer, Chingleput, but also the report of the Commissioner of Labour. Thus, we are unable to find anything to suggest that the Government had not considered all the relevant materials while it passed the impugned order.
27. Yet another point urged by the learned Counsel for the appellants is that the government should have accepted the report of the Commissioner of Labour and if the government wanted to differ, it should give its reasons. In our view, the said argument is most untenable. There is no provision in the Act to warrant an imposition of such a duty on the government, under Section 12(5) the government is bound to consider the report referred to in Sub-section (4). Sub-section (4) in turn refers to the report of the conciliation officer. In this case, it is not in dispute that the conciliation officer is the Labour Officer, Chingleput. The Labour Officer had recommended refusal. It has to be remembered that the Commissioner of Labour had recommended a reference. According to us, unless there is mandate in law that the recommendation of the Commissioner of Labour is binding on the government or should be respected by the government, it is too difficult to accept the above argument. It might be that besides the report of the conciliation officer, the government also wanted to know the attitude of the Commissioner of Labour. But that would not mean that the government is either bound by such report or to furnish weighty reasons to reject such report. In this case, it is seen from the government files and the impugned order that the government also took into consideration the report of the Commissioner of Labour, which is after all his opinion, having no statutory sanction. Thus, even this argument fails.
28. As the order to be passed by the government under Section 10(1) is after all an executive one and it is left to the subjective satisfaction of the government to refer or not a dispute for adjudication, the appellants are not entitled to have audi alteram partem and rightly did the learned single Judge reject their contention. As we have to construe the Act and as we had enough guidance from several decisions referred to in this judgment, it is unnecessary to refer to the recommendations of International Labour Organisation nor to several passages referred to in the Book of Administrative Law by Wade.
29. In the result, the writ appeal fails and is dismissed. But we make no order as to costs.