Skip to content


Madura Sugars Staff Union, Representing the Workmen of Madura Sugars and Allied Products Ltd. Vs. the State of Madras by Its Secretary, Industry, Labour and Co-operation Department and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLabour and Industrial
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Reported in(1968)1MLJ456
AppellantMadura Sugars Staff Union, Representing the Workmen of Madura Sugars and Allied Products Ltd.
RespondentThe State of Madras by Its Secretary, Industry, Labour and Co-operation Department and anr.
Excerpt:
- .....between the workers and the management aforesaid. it appears that during the pendency of the labour dispute there was an attempt at conciliation and that conciliation failed. the conciliation officer's report was taken up by the government for consideration and the government in its order g.o. rt. no. 2658, dated 2nd december, 1964, department of industries, labour and co-operation, summarised the three points in controversy and given reasons as to why the government was satisfied with the preservation of the status quo without a need to refer them to the labour court for adjudication. briefly stated, the first point of dispute was about the revision of dearness allowance. the workers appear to have claimed that the dearness allowance should be related to the cost of living index.....
Judgment:
ORDER

P. Ramakrishnan, J.

1. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by Madurai Sugars Staff Union, Pandiarajapuram, representing the workmen of Madurai Sugars and Allied Products Limited praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent, the State of Madras, to make a reference to the Labour Court for adjudication under Sections 10 and 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act on certain points of difference which had arisen between the workers and the management aforesaid. It appears that during the pendency of the labour dispute there was an attempt at conciliation and that conciliation failed. The Conciliation Officer's report was taken up by the Government for consideration and the Government in its order G.O. Rt. No. 2658, dated 2nd December, 1964, Department of Industries, Labour and Co-operation, summarised the three points in controversy and given reasons as to why the Government was satisfied with the preservation of the status quo without a need to refer them to the Labour Court for adjudication. Briefly stated, the first point of dispute Was about the revision of dearness allowance. The workers appear to have claimed that the dearness allowance should be related to the cost of living index at shorter intervals than one year. But the Government observed that the adjustment need be made only once a year in accordance with the recommendations of the Wage Board for sugar industries. The second point of dispute was in respect of the payment of minimum wages to casual workers. The Government order stated that there was a settlement arrived at between the parties on 31st May, 1962 under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, and that therefore there Was no need for the Government to make a reference for adjudication on this point. The third point of dispute related to the gratuity payable to one Sri. Viyakulam. The Government observed that it had been reported that under the existing gratuity scheme Sri Viyakulam did not have the minimum qualifying period of continuous service, and that therefore there Was no need to make a reference on this point also.

2. It was contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Government passed the above order without considering the views of the Workmen's Union. A reference to the record however shows that while passing the order the Government had before it the reports of the Labour Commissioner and the Conciliation Officer. Before the Conciliation Officer the Labour Union Was fully represented by the Secretary and the management was also represented. It is therefore not proper to contend that the Government passed the order without having in mind the viewpoint of the Labour Union. In an unreported decision in W.P. No. 564 of 1963, I had occasion to consider the several principles bearing upon the subject and as culled out from the reported cases. The principles were classified as six in number, (1) In making a decision about a reference under Section 10 the Government need not confine itself to the Conciliation Officer's report. It can go into other facts which came to its notice and which are relevant for the purpose. (2) The Government can go into the facts and find out whether a prima facie case for reference has been made out on the merits. (3) Where there is a disputed question of fact, the Government cannot reach a final conclusion on those facts and it will be for the Labour Court to reach a conclusion. (4) The Government should exercise its discretion bona fide in the matter of deciding whether to make a reference or not. (5) When the Government declines to make a-reference it is obliged to state its reasons; but it need not record all the reasons in the sense that the reasons should be exhaustive. The reasons which are given should be relevant and should not be extraneous to the subject-matter. (6) If the Government makes a reference, the Court cannot in a writ petition go into the question whether it acted properly in making the reference.

3. Applying the abovesaid principles to the present case, there is absolutely nothing to show that the order of the Government declining to make a reference offends any of the aforesaid principles or is erroneous or without jurisdiction. The writ petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //