Page 1

1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 286 OF 2016  (Arising out of SLP(C) No.8906 of 2011)

M/S RAHMAN INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.  … APPELLANT (S) VERSUS

STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS … RESPONDENT (S)

J U D G M E N T  

KURIAN, J.:

Leave granted.    2. The  appellant  challenged  the  award  dated  27.08.2010  passed under the provisions of the Timely Payment of Wages Act,  1978  and  the  recovery  before  the  High  Court  leading  to  the  impugned judgment dated 09.02.2011. The High Court found that  the order passed by the Labour Court was without jurisdiction,  and hence, the impugned orders were quashed. However, it was  clarified that the judgment of the High Court did not mean that  the workmen was left without any remedy. The question was only  on invocation of proper remedy before the appropriate forum. And  thus, it was directed that in case, any such matter is brought  before  the  Government,  the  Government  will  refer  it  for  adjudication before the Labour Court. To quote:

“However, quashing of the orders under the Timely  Payment of Wages Act, 1978 by this Court will not  mean that the claim of the workmen has been rejected  in any manner. The Court has not given any finding  on the rights of the workmen or the amount of wages  

REPORTABLE

Page 2

2

which had to be adjudicated by proper forum. The  opposite  party  No.  6  and  the  workmen  will  be  at  liberty  to  approach  the  proper  forum  under  the  Payment of Wages Act, 1936 or any other forum under  the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 or any other forum  which they deem fit in the facts and circumstances  of the case. It is also provided that in case matter  is brought before the government it will refer it  for  adjudication  at  the  earliest  and  the  Labour  Court will decide the whole matter within a maximum  period of four months from the date of reference.”

 3. The  grievance  of  the  appellant  is  in  a  very  narrow  compass. It is pointed out that there is a peremptory direction  by the High Court to refer the dispute raised by the workmen for  adjudication, virtually taking away the discretion on the part  of the Government to look into the issue as to whether there is  a referable dispute at all. 4. We  find  force  in  the  submission  made  by  the  learned  Counsel.  In  the  scheme  of  the  Industrial  Disputes  Act,  1947  (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), it is not as if the  Government has to act as a post office by referring each and  every petition received by them. The Government is well within  its jurisdiction to see whether there exists a dispute worth  referring  for  adjudication.  No  doubt,  the  Government  is  not  entitled  to  enter  a  finding  on  the  merits  of  the  case  and  decline reference. The Government has to satisfy itself, after  applying its mind to the relevant factors and satisfy itself to  the existence of dispute before taking a decision to refer the  same for adjudication. Only in case, on judicial scrutiny, the  court  finds  that  the  refusal  of  the  Government  to  make  a  reference of the dispute is unjustified on irrelevant factors,  the court may issue a direction to the Government to make a  reference. 5. The jurisdiction of the Government under the scheme of  the Act to satisfy itself as to the existence of the dispute has  been the subject matter of catena of judgments of this Court,

Page 3

3

some of which have been referred to in Steel Authority of India  v.  Union of India1, wherein it has been held at paragraph-18,  which reads as follows:

“  18. Before  adverting  to  the  questions  raised  before  us,  we  may  at  this  juncture  notice  the  contention of Mr V.N. Raghupathy that whereas in the  reference only 26 workmen were made parties, more  than  600  workmen  were  made  parties  in  the  writ  petition  and,  thus,  only  because  before  the  appropriate Government a demand was raised by some  of the workmen contending that they were workmen of  the  contractors,  an  industrial  dispute  could  be  raised that the contract was a sham one and in truth  and  substance  the  workmen  were  employed  by  the  management.”   

6. In  Rashtriya  Chemicals  and  Fertilizers  Limited  and  another v.  General Employees’Association and others2, following  Steel Authority of India (supra), it has been held at paragraph- 8 that … “It is for the appropriate Government to apply its mind  to relevant factors and satisfy itself as to the existence of a  dispute before deciding to refer the dispute. …”. 7. In  Telco  Convoy  Drivers  Mazdoor  Sangh  and  another v.  State of Bihar and others3, it has been held that on judicial  review, if the court finds that the appropriate Government was  not justified in not making a reference, the court may issue a  positive direction to make a reference. 8. This  Court,  in  Sarva  Shramik  Sangh v.  Indian  Oil  Corporation Limited4, has cited almost all the previous decisions  on this point with approval. 9. The High Court has, in the impugned order, denied the  jurisdiction vested in the Government in the scheme of the Act  to examine a case for the purpose of satisfying itself as to  whether  there  exists  a  dispute  for  referring  to  the  Labour  1  (2006) 12 SCC 233 2  (2007) 5 SCC 273  3  (1989) 3 SCC 271 4  (2009) 11 SCC 609

Page 4

4

Court/Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. The High Court has  issued a mandatory direction in the very first instance to refer  the  dispute,  if  any,  raised  by  the  workmen  for  adjudication  before the Labour Court. That is against the scheme of the Act  as we have seen from the legal position settled by this Court. 10. We, hence, set aside the impugned order to the extent  that there is a mandatory direction for referring the issues  raised  by  the  workman  for  adjudication.  However,  we  make  it  clear that the Government must examine whether a dispute exists  or not, and in case it is so satisfied, it should refer the same  for adjudication before the Labour Court. Needful should be done  within a period of three months from the date on which the issue  is raised by the workmen. 11. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. There shall be  no orders as to costs.                   

…………………………………………………………J.        (KURIAN JOSEPH)

…………………………………………………………J.        (ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN)

NEW DELHI; JANUARY 18, 2016.