Telco Convoy Drivers Mazdoor Sangh v. State of Bihar

FACTS

• The appellants, Telco Convoy Drivers Mazdoor Sangh (representing about 900 convoy drivers), demanded permanent status and facilities for the drivers from Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. (TELCO).

• The State of Bihar (the appropriate government) refused to refer the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

• Reason for Refusal: The Deputy Labour Commissioner, acting on behalf of the government, refused the reference on the ground that the convoy drivers were not "workmen" and lacked an employer-employee relationship with TELCO. The government essentially decided the dispute on its merits.

• The Patna High Court dismissed the appellants' writ petition, and the appeal was subsequently filed before the Supreme Court.

ISSUES

1. Whether the State Government was justified in adjudicating the dispute on its merits (i.e., deciding whether the convoy drivers were workmen/employees of TELCO) in exercise of its administrative function under Section 10(1) of the Act.

2. Whether the relationship of employer and employees between TELCO and the convoy drivers was a question that should have been referred for adjudication.

JUDGEMENT

• The apex court set aside the High Court's judgment and the refusal orders.

• The State of Bihar was mandated to make a reference under Section 10(1) of the dispute raised by the Sangh to an Industrial Tribunal within one month.

OBSERVATION & LIMITATION ON GOVERNMENT POWER

This judgment further refined the principle established in State of Madras v. C.P. Sarathy, emphasizing the limitation on the Government's power when deciding on a reference:

• No Adjudication on Merits: The Court held that the State Government was not justified in adjudicating the dispute, namely, whether the convoy drivers are workmen or employees of TELCO.

• Administrative vs. Adjudicatory Function: The function of the appropriate Government under Section 10(1) is an administrative function, requiring it only to form an opinion as to whether an "industrial dispute exists or is apprehended."

• The Limit: The Government cannot go further and decide the dispute itself on its merits. The question of fact—whether a person is a 'workman' or whether a master-servant relationship exists—is the very issue to be referred for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal.

• Conclusion: By refusing the reference on the ground that the drivers were not workmen, the Government usurped the Tribunal's adjudicatory function, thereby committing an error of jurisdiction.