ION Civil Appeal No 119 of 1975
Appeal by Special leave from the Judgement and order dated 15 4 1974 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Writ Petition No 4289 of 1973
N N Goswami and Arvind Minocha for the Appellant
GB Pai section R Agarwal Parveen Kumar and Khaitan  Co for Respondent No 2
1011 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAY CJ
This appeal by special leave turns on the question whether the State can be asked by a writ of mandamus to make a reference under section 101 of the Industrial Disputes Act hereinafter referred to as the Act
The appellant was employed by the respondent company Hindustan Dowidat Tools Ltd The services of the appellant were terminated on 4th September 1972
The appellant thereafter demanded reinstatement
The Conciliation officer started conciliation proceedings under section 12 of the Act
No settlement could be arrived at
The Conciliation officer sent a report to the State Government under section 124 of the Act
The State Government by letter dated 7 June 1973 informed the appellant that the Government had considered the appellant s case not fit for reference to the Labour Court for adjudication
The Government in the letter stated as follows The Government have not found your case fit for adjudication to a Labour Court because you were working as an Electrical Foreman in this concern which was a supervisory job and your wages were more than Rs 500 per month
Therefore your case is not covered by the definition of the terms Workman given in the Industrial Disputes Act
 The appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution applied for a writ of mandamus directing the State to make a reference
The High Court dismissed the application
The appellant contended that the question whether the appellant was a workman was a disputed question of fact and law which could be decided only by an appropriate Labour Court
The appellant also submitted that if the dispute in question raises questions of law the appropriate Government should not give a final decision on the question
In short the appellant s contention is that the issue whether the appellant is a workman or not could only be decided by the Labour Court and therefore reference should have been made
Under Section 10 of the Act where the appropriate Government is of opinion that any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended it may at any time refer the dispute inter alia to a National Tribunal for adjudication
Section 12 of the Act deals with duties of Conciliation officers
If the Conciliation officer cannot arrive at a settlement of the dispute he sends a report to the appropriate Government
Under section 12S of the Act if on a consideration of the report referred to in sub section 4 the appropriate Government is satisfied that there is a case for reference it may make such reference
Where the appropriate Government does not make such a reference it shall record and communicate to the parties concerned its reasons therefor
1012 This Court in State of Madras vs CP Sarathy and State of Bombay vs KP Krishnan  ors
held that the order of the Government acting under section 101 read with section 125 of the Act is an administrative order and not a judicial or a quasi judicial one
In Bombay Union of Journalists  ors
vs The State of Bombay and Anr
this Court said that in entertaining an application for a writ of mandamus against an order made by the appropriate Government under section 101 read with section 125 of the Act the Court does not sit in appeal over the order and is not entitled to consider the propriety or the satisfactory character of the reasons given by the Government
If it appears that the reasons given show that the appropriate Government took into account any consideration irrelevant or foreign then the Court may in a given case consider the case on a writ of mandamus
In KP Krishnan s case supra the issues in dispute related to a claim of classification for specified employees and additional bonus and the sole ground on which the Government refused to refer the dispute for adjudication under section 125 of the Act was that the employees had adopted go slow tactics during the relevant year
The facts were that the company had nevertheless voluntarily paid three months  bonus for that year and the report of the Conciliation officer was in favour of the employees
This Court held that the Government acted on irrelevant considerations and issued a writ of mandamus
In the present case the fact is that the Government found that the appellant was not a workman within the definition of workman in the Act and therefore it was not a fit case for reference for adjudication
The High Court rightly rejected the application
The appeal is therefore dismissed
Parties will pay and bear their own costs
SR Appeal dismissed


Summary:
Under section 125 read with 101 of the Industrial Disputes Act if on consideration of a failure report us 124 from the conciliation officer the appropriate Government is satisfied and is of opinion that there is an industrial dispute and a case for reference it may make such reference to the labour court
On considering the failure report of the conciliation proceedings in respect of the appellant an Electrical foreman the respondent state informed him that his duties being supervisory with wages more than Rs 500 his case was not covered by the definition of the terms workman under the Industrial Disputes Act and therefore not a fit case for adjudication
The appellant assailed the said orders under Art226 which was dismissed
On appeal by special leave the appellant contended that the question whether an employee is a workman or not was a disputed question of fact and law and therefore could only be decided by a labour court and on a reference only but not by the State Government while exercising its powers us 125
Dismissing the appeal the Court  HELD 1 The order of the Government acting under section 101 read with section 125 of the Industrial Disputes Act passed after subjective satisfaction is an administrative order and not a judicial or a quasi judicial one
1012A Sate of Madras vs C P Sararthy and State of Bombay vs K P Krishnan  ors
followed
ii In entertaining an application for a writ of mandamus against an order made by the appropriate Government under section 10I read with section 12S of the Act the court does not sit in appeal over the order and is not entitled to consider the propriety or the satisfactory character of the reasons
If it appears from the reasons given that the appropriate Government took into account any consideration irrelevant or foreign then the court may in a given case consider the case for a writ of mandamus
1012 A C Bombay Union of Journalists ors vs The State of Bombay