Sankari Cement Alai Thozhilalar Munnertra Sangam vs The Government of Tamil Nadu and Another

Ramaprasada Rao, C.J.—The appellant filed a writ petition seeking for a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the first respondent in G. O.

Rt. No. 708. Labour and Employment dated 5th April, 1975. The circumstances which led to the filing of the writ petition may be briefly stated.

Certain disputes arose as between the second respondent--management and its workers A domestic adjustment was made as between the

management and the workmen in and by which they agreed that they should enquire into the alleged misconduct of 19 workmen and submit their

decision to the Minister for Labour of the State Government for his final decision and action. This was by mutual agreement entered into between

the second respondent the workers before the Minister for Labour on 1st July, 1971. Pursuant to such accord disciplinary proceedings were

initiated by the second respondent against the said workmen who dismissed the entire lot of them, but as provided under the agreement referred to

above, the subject-matter was referred to the Minister for Labour for his ultimate decision in the matter. It is common ground that the Minister for

Labour after reviewing the situation was of the view that 14 out of the 19 workmen should be taken back to employment as new entrants and that

the decision in the disciplinary proceedings as against the remaining 5 workers should stand. The five workers were not satisfied with the ultimate

decision of the Minister for Labour, though under the accord dated 1st July, 1971, between the management and the workmen concerned they

had agreed upon such a course and had left the matter ultimately for the decision of the Minister for Labour, after the conclusion of the disciplinary

proceedings by the management. They therefore raised an industrial dispute. The necessary conciliation proceedings were initiated by the Labour

Officer, Salem, and the report of the Labour Officer was also considered by the Government which was by then asked to refer the non-

employment of the five workers to the Industrial Court. The Government, after calling for the conciliation report from the Labour Officer, Salem,

and in consultation with the Commissioner for Labour, were of the view that there was not sufficient material for them to act u/s 10-A of the

Industrial Disputes Act. The main reason which prompted the Government not to make a reference u/s 10-A was that the subject-matter from the

inception was governed by the accord dated 1st July, 1971, and that the management having fully submitted themselves to the letter and sprit of

that accord, and as the Minister for Labour was of the view that there was justification for the non-employment of the five workers, they would not

exercise their jurisdiction u/s 10-A and refer the matter to the Industrial Court. Consequent upon each refusal the present writ petition out of which

this appeal arises, was filed to quash the order of the Government under which they refused to act u/s 10-A.

It is not for the Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to remove an order made by the Government in due exercise

of their statutory authority, after being satisfied as to the merits of the case. Certiorari is a writ issued for the removal of orders made by quasi-

judicial Tribunals who are statutory functionaries or functionaries exercising quasi-judicial powers. It is only in cases where the Court is satisfied

that there is an error apparent or deliberate non-exercise of jurisdiction which the statutory Tribunal has or while exercising jurisdiction the

principles of natural justice have been violated that a writ of certiorari is issued to quash such orders made by quasi-judicial Tribunals Mohan, J.,

considered the facts and came to the conclusion that on merits the State Government was satisfied that the non-employment of the five workers

having been the subject matter of the earlier accord dated 1st July, 1971, and that having been finalised in terms thereof, there were no further

grounds for recongideation of the matter. Such decisions can be arrived at by the State Government in exercise of their powers under the act.

There has been no improper exercise of power or jurisdiction which alone can compel the Court to issue a rule under Article 226 of the

Constitution. Rightly therefore Mohan, J. dismissed the writ petition. We see no reason to interfere. The writ appeal is dismissed.