Case: Prem Kakar Vs. State Of Haryana And Anr

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 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as theappellant 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 12(4) of the Act. The State Government by letter dated 7 June, 1973 informed the appellant that the Government had considered the appellants case not fit for reference to the Labour Court forGovernment in the letter stated asGovernment 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 Disputesappellant 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.

Court's reasoning:
In K.P. 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 12(5) 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 forHigh Court rightly rejected the application.