State of Bombay v. K.P. Krishnan

FACTS

• The dispute was between Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India Ltd. and its workmen, raising four demands (gratuity, holidays, classification, and bonus).

• The Conciliation Officer submitted a report stating that conciliation failed.

• The workers' union applied to the State of Bombay (the appropriate Government) to refer the dispute for industrial adjudication under Section 10(1) read with Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

• The Government refused the reference, giving reasons that included the fact that the workers had resorted to a slow-down during the relevant period.

• The respondents (workmen) filed a petition in the Bombay High Court for a writ of mandamus to compel the Government to refer the dispute. The High Court granted the mandamus, directing the Government to reconsider the decision by disregarding the slow-down.

• The State of Bombay appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUES

1. Whether the Government, while acting under Section 12(5), can consider the workers' conduct (like a slow-down) as a germane reason for refusing to make a reference.

2. What is the scope of judicial scrutiny over the Government's administrative order refusing a reference under Section 12(5).

JUDGEMENT

• The apex court dismissed the appeals, thereby upholding the High Court's order granting the writ of mandamus against the Government.

• The Court directed the Government to reconsider the decision, ignoring the slow-down and taking into account only reasons relevant to determining whether a reference should be made.

OBSERVATION & JUDICIAL SCRUTINY

This judgment is pivotal for defining the limits of the Government's administrative discretion under Section 12(5) and extending the scope of judicial review over such orders.

1. Distinction Between Relevant and Extraneous Reasons

• Government's Duty (Section 12(5)): The government must consider the Conciliation Officer's report and decide whether there is a case for reference. If it refuses, it must record and communicate its reasons.

• Mandamus Issued: The Supreme Court held that the Government's decision was "wholly punitive in character" because it punished the workmen for the slow-down by denying them the right to adjudication. This consideration was held to be "not germane and is extraneous" to the core issue of reference.

• Relevant Consideration: The only relevant question for the Government is whether there is a prima facie case for reference that needs adjudication. The slow-down was an issue of misconduct, which should be dealt with through disciplinary action or industrial adjudication, not used as a ground to deny adjudication itself.

2. Scope of Judicial Scrutiny

• The Court established that where the reasons given by the Government for refusing to make a reference are found to be extraneous and not germane, the court can and will be justified in issuing a writ of mandamus even in respect of such an administrative order.

3. Construction of Section 12(5)

• The Court agreed with the High Court that the word "may" in the first part of Section 12(5) ("The appropriate Government may make such reference") must be construed to mean "shall," having regard to the fact that the power to refer is coupled with the duty to record reasons for refusal.