Sharad Kumar v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi

FACTS

• The appellant, who held the post of an Area Sales Executive, had his services terminated without any show-cause notice or inquiry.

• The Conciliation Officer submitted a failure report to the Government of NCT of Delhi (the appropriate Government).

• The Government refused to refer the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court on the sole ground that the employee was not a "workman" within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

• The Delhi High Court refused to interfere with the Government's decision, leading to the appeal to the Supreme Court.

ISSUES

1. Whether the State Government was right in rejecting the appellant’s request for a reference on the ground that he was not a "workman."

2. What is the scope and extent of the power to be exercised by the appropriate government under Section 10(1) of the Act.

3. Whether the question of the appellant being a "workman" or not involves an inquiry into facts that could be finally decided by the State Government.

JUDGEMENT

• The apex court allowed the appeal.

• The Government of NCT of Delhi was directed to refer the appellant's dispute to the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court for adjudication, specifically including the issue of whether the appellant is a "workman" under the Act.

OBSERVATION & LIMITATION ON GOVERNMENT POWER

This judgment is a crucial clarification of the administrative nature of the government's power under Section 10(1) and reinforces the limits of judicial intervention in the referral process, a principle previously established in Telco Convoy Drivers Mazdoor Sangh v. State of Bihar.

1. Government Cannot Adjudicate

• The Court held that the determination of the question requires examination of factual matters for which materials including oral evidence will have to be considered.

• In such a matter, the State Government could not abrogate onto itself the power to adjudicate on the question (whether the employee is a workman), thereby terminating the proceedings prematurely.

• The role of the Government under Section 10(1) is administrative, not judicial or quasi-judicial. The Government's power is limited to seeing whether a dispute exists or is apprehended.

2. "Workman" is an Adjudicatory Question

• The question of whether the appellant was a "workman" within the meaning of Section 2(s) is itself an industrial dispute which must be decided by the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court.

• The Court noted that the designation of the employee (e.g., Area Sales Executive) is not of much importance and certainly not conclusive. The conclusion must be based on the nature of duties discharged, particularly the principal duty. The Government erred in rejecting the reference merely based on the designation.

3. Scope of Judicial Scrutiny

• The Court concluded that the High Court was clearly in error in confirming the order of rejection, as the Government acted outside the scope of its administrative jurisdiction by deciding a highly factual and complex question reserved for the adjudicatory body.