Gujarat High Court
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. ... vs Deputy Labour Commissioner on 2 April, 2026
Author: Bhargav D. Karia
Bench: Bhargav D. Karia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1177/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026
undefined
Reserved On : 16/02/2026
Pronounced On : 02/04/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1177 of 2025
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION/2707/2024
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1177 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
==========================================================
SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD. THROUGH ANIL KUMAR
Versus
DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR KEYUR GANDHI WITH MR NISARG DESAI WITH MS PRAVALIKA
BATHINI WITH MS RITU AGRAWAL WITH MR YASH MODI for
GANDHI LAW ASSOCIATES(12275) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS SHRUTI DHRUVE, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
MR IG JOSHI(8726) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
CAV JUDGMENT
Page 1 of 68
Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 00:26:08 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1177/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026 undefined (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA)
1.Heard learned advocate Mr. Keyur Gandhi with learned advocate Mr. Nisarg Desai with learned advocate Ms. Pravalika Bathini with learned advocate Ms. Ritu Agrawal with learned advocate Mr. Yash Modi for Gandhi Law Associates for the appellant, learned advocate Mr. I.G. Joshi for respondent no.3 and learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Shruti Dhruve for the respondent State.
2.By this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, 1865 the appellant original petitioner has challenged the Judgment and Order dated 28.07.2025 passed in Special Civil Application No. 2707 of 2024 whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition filed by the appellant original petitioner holding that no error can be found in the administrative decision of the learned Page 2 of 68 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 00:26:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1177/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026 undefined Assistant Labour Commissioner in referring the dispute to the Labour Court. Facts:-
3.Brief facts of the case as per the averments in the petition, are that respondent no.3 Devendra Harshadbhai Pathak was working in the appellant company on the position of "Senior Executive/Manager Administration - Supervisor" with a salary of Rs.76,268/- per month.
4.According to the appellant, respondent no.3 was also given several authorities on behalf of the appellant company and was responsible for carrying out duties of managerial, supervisory and administrative nature. According to the appellant therefore, respondent no.3 never worked as a "workman" as defined in section 2(s) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1948 (for short ' the ID Act') Page 3 of 68 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 00:26:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1177/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026 undefined with the appellant company but was working in the supervisory capacity.
5.It is the case of the appellant that respondent no.3 submitted voluntary resignation and accordingly, the appellant on 08.08.2023 relieved respondent no.3 from service as per the applicable terms and conditions of his employment and dues of Rs.4,43,468/- was also disbursed towards full and final settlement to respondent no.3 by the appellant company.
6.It appears that respondent no.3 after three months filed a complaint dated 06.09.2023 before the respondent no.2- Assistant Labour Commissioner, Vadodara challenging his termination/removal/separation from the appellant company.
7.Respondent no.3 also approached Cyber Crime Police Station, Vadodara alleging that he had Page 4 of 68 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 00:26:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1177/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026 undefined not submitted resignation, however, such claim was rejected by the Cyber Police station pursuant to the inquiry.
8.Respondent no.3 thereafter issued notice dated 13,09.2023 upon the appellant company which was replied on 27.10.2023 by the appellant company along with supporting 35 documents to demonstrate that respondent no.3 was working in managerial and administrative capacity.
9.However, respondent no.2 by order of reference dated 28.11.2023 referred the dispute raised by respondent no.3 for adjudication which was registered as Reference (T-LC) No.410 of 2023 by the Labour Court, Vadodara. Respondent No.2 framed reference as under:
"Whether the workman Pathak Devendra Harshadbhai should be reinstated on his original place with continuity of service and back wages or not?"Page 5 of 68 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 00:26:08 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1177/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026 undefined
10. Such order was forwarded to the appellant company by communication dated 05.12.2023.
11. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by respondent no.2, the appellant preferred Special Civil Application No.2707/2024 with following prayers:
"8(a) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, to quash and set aside the Order dated 28.11.2023 passed by the respondent no.2 Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Vadodara in Case No.310 of 2023."
12. Learned Single Judge by the impugned Judgment and Order dated 28.07.2025 dismissed the petition upholding the order dated 28.11.2023 of respondent no.2 referring the dispute to learned Labour Court for adjudication and the question as to whether Page 6 of 68 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 00:26:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1177/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026 undefined respondent no.3 qualifies as 'workman' under section 2(s) of the ID Act can only be determined upon adjudication by the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal and not by the respondent no.2.
Submissions of the appellant:-
13. Learned advocate Mr. Gandhi for the appellant submitted that the respondent no.3 was working as a 'Senior Executive/Manager Administration- Supervisor' with the Appellant Company and was drawing salary of Rs. 76,268/- per month and was responsible for carrying out duties which were managerial, supervisory and administrative in nature. Therefore, considering the nature of duties performed by respondent No.3, he does not fall within the definition of 'workman' under Section 2(s) of the ID Act. It was therefore, submitted that the learned Single Page 7 of 68 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 00:26:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1177/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026 undefined Judge has erred in holding that the question as to whether the respondent No. 3 qualifies as a 'workman' under Section 2(s) of the I.D Act can only be determined upon adjudication by learned Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal and has failed to appreciate that the respondent No. 3 was drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 76,368/- and performed nature of duties which are completely managerial and supervisory in nature and cannot be said to be a 'workman'.
14. It was submitted that during the conciliation proceedings before the respondent no. 2, the appellant had produced sufficient material along with reply dated 27.10.2023 such as Power of Attorney given to the respondent No.3 by the appellant-Company, email correspondences showing that the respondent No.3 was working in supervisory capacity, copies of warning letter issued by Page 8 of 68 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 00:26:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1177/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026 undefined the respondent No.3 to employees working under him, copies of reports reviewing performance of the employees working under him, copies of proof of payment made to the contractors, copies of the documents showing the supervisory duties of the contract workers etc. and applicable judgments, to show that the respondent no.3 was holding major responsibilities in managerial and administrative capacity which were assigned to respondent no.3 by the Appellant-Company.
15. Learned advocate for the appellant placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, Indian Tea Association V. Ajit Kumar Barat and Others reported in (2000) 3 SCC 93 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that before making a reference under Section 10 of the ID Act the appropriate Government has to form an opinion whether an employee is a 'workman' Page 9 of 68 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 00:26:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1177/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026 undefined and thereafter has to consider as to whether an industrial dispute exists or is apprehended and unless the condition of the employee being a 'workman' is fulfilled, no reference can be made.
16. Learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the respondent No.3 had voluntarily resigned from the service by submitting his resignation through the employee portal using his individual user id and password, and he was accordingly relieved by the appellant-company after payment of Rs.4,43,468/- towards full and final settlement of his dues as per the terms and conditions of his employment. Hence, upon payment of full and final settlement dues, it cannot be said that there existed any industrial dispute between the appellant-
company and respondent no. 3 and therefore without there being any industrial dispute Page 10 of 68 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 00:26:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1177/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026 undefined under section 2(k) of the ID Act, respondent no. 2 vide his order dated 28.11.2023 has erroneously referred the same to learned Labour Court, Vadodara for adjudication.
17. It was further submitted that the satisfaction of existence of an industrial dispute or the satisfaction that an industrial dispute is apprehended is a condition precedent to make the order of reference. It was submitted that the Learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated that if the dispute doesn't exist between the employer and employee, the appropriate Government can justifiably refuse to refer the dispute. It was therefore submitted that the Learned Single Judge has erred in holding that no infirmity has been committed by the appropriate Government in referring the dispute to the Labour Court without appreciating the evidences on record that Page 11 of 68 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 00:26:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1177/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026 undefined there is no industrial dispute which requires adjudication.
18. It was further submitted that as the respondent no. 3 had voluntarily resigned from the services and the same was accepted by the appellant-company and dues payable to the respondent no.3 were paid by the appellant-company, the employer-employee relationship between them had already ceased to exist upon acceptance of resignation and therefore, the Reference made by respondent no.2 is erroneous. It was therefore, submitted that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that the employer- employee relationship between the Appellant and the Respondentno.3 had ceased to exist after acceptance of voluntary resignation and therefore also the Reference is not tenable.
19. It was submitted that existence of Page 12 of 68 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 00:26:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1177/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026 undefined employer-employee relationship is sine qua non for treating respondent no. 3 as a workman to allow him to claim relief against the appellant-company. In support of such submission, learned advocate for the appellant placed reliance on the judgment in case of J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Company Limited v. State of U.P. and Others reported in 1990 (4) SCC 27 wherein Hon'ble Apex Court held that one of the ways of terminating employment is resignation and if an employee makes his resignation and the employer accepts the resignation, the employment comes to an end and with it stands severed the employer-employee relationship. It was further held that under the common law the resignation is not complete until it is accepted by the proper authority and before such acceptance an employee can change his mind and withdraw the resignation but once the resignation is accepted the employment Page 13 of 68 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 00:26:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1177/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026 undefined comes to an end and the relationship of master and servant stands snapped. It was further submitted that the said legal position has been followed by various High Courts and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent judgement of Shriram Manohar Bande v. Uktranti Mandal and Others reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 647 has affirmed the findings of the High Court that acceptance of resignation would be sufficient.
20. Learned advocate for the appellant submitted that an Order of Reference depends on subjective satisfaction arrived at by the Government, however, the order is subject to the judicial review if it is shown that the Appropriate Government had no material before it or it had not applied its mind to the material before it or not taken into consideration certain vital facts which it ought to have taken into consideration. It Page 14 of 68 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 00:26:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1177/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026 undefined was further submitted that where challenge is to an Order making a reference under Section 10 of the ID Act, the level of scrutiny by a Writ Court is completely different from the case wherein the order refusing reference is challenged. In support of such submission, learned advocate for the appellant placed reliance on the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Prabhakar v. Joint Director, Sericulture Department and Another reported in 2015 (15) SCC 1 wherein it is held that the satisfaction of the Government that there exists an industrial dispute or there is apprehension of an industrial dispute is a condition precedent for order of Reference and an order of Reference cannot be made without forming such opinion. It was further held that the person whose dispute is referred for adjudication must be a 'workman' and if the person is not a 'workman' than the said dispute cannot be said to be an Page 15 of 68 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 00:26:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1177/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026 undefined industrial dispute and the Government can rightly refuse to refer the said dispute to learned Labour Court/Tribunal for adjudication.
21. It was further submitted that the opinion of the Government must be held on relevant facts and if challenged, it would have to be supported by reasons. The Government's satisfaction must be based on facts that have been gathered by the Government to show that the conditions precedent exists when the Order of Reference is made. It was therefore submitted that formation of opinion by the Government should reflect application of mind with reference to material available on record which is not done in facts of the present case. In support of such submission, learned advocate for the appellant placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of 63 Moons Page 16 of 68 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 00:26:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1177/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026 undefined Technologies Limited v. Union of India and Others reported in 2019 (18) SCC 401 and in case of Barium Chemicals Limited v. Company Law Board reported in 1966 Supp SCR 311.
22. It was further submitted that, in facts of the present case, the Government has not formed any opinion which is also apparent from the affidavit-in-reply filed in the petition. It was further submitted that the Government has not taken into consideration the documentary evidence produced by the appellant in support of its contentions. It was therefore submitted that appeal deserves to be allowed.
Submissions of the respondent no. 3:
23. Learned advocate Mr. I. G. Joshi for respondent no. 3 - employee submitted that Section 12(5) of the ID Act, provides for recording of reasons by the appropriate Page 17 of 68 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 00:26:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1177/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026 undefined Government, if the Government does not make a reference and while rejecting the reference, it shall record reasons for rejection and communicate the same to the parties concerned. Reliance was place on the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sultan Singh v/s. State of Haryana and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 66.
24. Learned advocate Mr. Joshi submitted that that the respondent was a 'workman' who on account of there being an Industrial Dispute as defined under Section 2(k) of the ID Act had raised the dispute before the appropriate Government as prescribed under the ID Act and the said dispute of retrenchment was ordered to be referred to the Labour Court under the provisions of Section 10(1) of the ID Act for proper adjudication. Therefore, the Order of Reference passed by respondent no. 2 is just Page 18 of 68 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 00:26:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1177/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026 undefined and proper as held by learned Single Judge. Reliance was placed on the decisison of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Telco Convoy Drivers Mazdoor Sangh and Another v/s. State of Bihar and Others reported in (1989) 3 SCC 271 wherein it was held that while considering the question of making a reference under Section 10(1), the Government is entitled to form an opinion as to whether an industrial dispute "exists or is apprehended". However, the formation of opinion as to whether an industrial dispute "exists or is apprehended" is not the same thing as to adjudicate the dispute itself on its merits. It was submitted that the requirement under the ID Act is for the appropriate Government to have an 'opinion' as to whether any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended to exist to refer the dispute to the learned Labour Court. Page 19 of 68 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 00:26:08 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1177/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026 undefined
25. It was therefore submitted that in the present case when the dispute was not settled before the appropriate Government, the same was referred to the Labour Court by the Assistant Labour Commissioner.
26. It was further submitted that, it is not under the scheme and the scope of the ID Act for the appropriate Government to have an 'opinion' in a set format inasmuch as whether or not the Respondent-Workman is falling within the definition of a "workman" under Section 2(s) of the ID Act is not required to be adjudicated at the stage of referring a dispute to the Labour Court by the Commissioner otherwise it would result into an administrative authority acting beyond the scope of powers so conferred under the Act. It was submitted that only two essentials according to the said sub-section as regards to the making of a reference are to be Page 20 of 68 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 00:26:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1177/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026 undefined considered i.e.
i) that the appropriate Government must be of opinion that a dispute exists or is apprehended, and
ii) that the reference must be by order in writing.
27. Learned advocate Mr. Joshi placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of State of Madras v/s. C.P. Sarathy and Another. reported in (1952) 2 SCC 606 .
28. Learned advocate Mr. Joshi submitted that the issue as to whether the Respondent no. 3 is a "Workman" within the definition of Section 2(s) of the Act, must be adjudicated by the Labour Court while adjudicating the Reference and not by the appropriate Page 21 of 68 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 00:26:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1177/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026 undefined Government while referring the dispute to the reference court much less by this Court under 226 of the Constitution of India and/or subsequently by the Letters Patent Bench exercising powers under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, as has been dealt with in the judgment of Hon'ble Apex court in case of Telco Convoy Drivers Mazdoor Sangh and Another v/s. State of Bihar and Others (1989) 3 SCC 271. It was therefore submitted that the appeal deserves to be dismissed. Findings :
29. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties, short question which arises for consideration is whether challenge to order passed by respondent no.2 under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 to determine whether the dispute exists or is apprehended and thereafter refer it for adjudication on merits can be Page 22 of 68 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 00:26:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1177/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026 undefined entertained while exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the High Court or the said aspect is to be considered by the Labour Court on appreciation of evidence to be led by both the sides on such issue.
30. It would therefore, be germane to refer to the relevant provisions of the ID Act:
"2(k) "industrial dispute" means any dispute or difference between employers and employers, or between employers and workmen, or between workmen and workmen, which is connected with the employment or non-employment or the terms of employment or with the conditions of labour, of any person;
2(s) "workman" means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such person who has Page 23 of 68 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 00:26:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1177/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026 undefined been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any such person-
(i) who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), or the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), or the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957); or
(ii) who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a prison; or
(iii) who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity; or
(iv) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding [ten thousand rupees] per mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature.] CHAPTER III REFERENCE OF DISPUTES TO BOARDS, COURTS OR TRIBUNALS
10. Reference of disputes to Boards, Courts or Tribunals.-(1) [Where the appropriate Government is of opinion that any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended, it may at any time], by order in writing-Page 24 of 68 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 00:26:08 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1177/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026 undefined
(a) refer the dispute to a Board for promoting a settlement thereof; or
(b) refer any matter appearing to be connected with or relevant to the dispute to a Court for inquiry; or [(c) refer the dispute or any matter appearing to be connected with, or relevant to, the dispute, if it relates to any matter specified in the Second Schedule, to a Labour Court for adjudication; or] [(d) refer the dispute or any matter appearing to be connected with, or relevant to, the dispute, whether it relates to any matter specified in the Second Schedule or the Third Schedule, to a Tribunal for adjudication:
Provided that where the dispute relates to any matter specified in the Third Schedule and is not likely to affect more than one hundred workmen, the appropriate Government may, if it so thinks fit, make the reference to a Labour Court under clause (c):] [Provided further that] where the dispute relates to a public utility service and a notice under section 22 has been given, the appropriate Government shall, unless it considers that the notice has been frivolously or vexatiously given or that it would be inexpedient so to do, make a reference under this sub-
section notwithstanding that any Page 25 of 68 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 00:26:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1177/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026 undefined other proceedings under this Act in respect of the dispute may have commenced:
[Provided also that where the dispute in the relation to which the Central Government is the appropriate Government, it shall be competent for the Government to refer the dispute to a Labour Court or an Industrial Tribunal, as the case may be, constituted by the State Government.]"
12 Duties of conciliation officers (5) 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 to a Board, 2[Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal], 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."
31. The main contention of the appellant company is that respondent no.3 does not fall within the definition of 'workman' under section 2(s) of the ID Act and secondly, that respondent no.3 voluntarily resigned from service and has accepted all his dues. Page 26 of 68 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 00:26:08 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1177/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026 undefined
32. It was therefore, contended that no industrial dispute can be said to have arisen in case of an employee of the company discharging the duties in a supervisory/managerial capacity.
33. The other contention which is raised by learned advocate for the appellant is that respondent no.2 while making the reference has not recorded any reason for arriving at a conclusion to determine whether a dispute exists or not and thereafter referring it for adjudication on merits before the Labour Court.
34. As per the settled legal position in case of Sultan Singh v/s. State of Haryana and Another (supra), respondent no.2 is required to provide reasons when he comes to the conclusion that no dispute exists as per Page 27 of 68 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 00:26:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1177/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026 undefined section 12(5) of the ID Act. On perusal of section 10(1) of the ID Act, it refers only to formation of opinion by the appropriate Government that if industrial dispute exists or is apprehended then to pass an order in writing to refer the dispute to the Labour Court for adjudication under clause (c) thereof, if the dispute relates to any matter specified in the Second Schedule which provides for discharge or dismissal of workman including reinstatement or grant of relief to workman wrongfully dismissed. The Hon'ble Apex has held as under:
"3. The first question is whether the State should give a hearing to the employer before making a reference on second application, since on an earlier occasion, it was rejected. Section 10(1) of the Act provides that where an appropriate Government is of the opinion that any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended, it may, at any time, by order in writing refer the dispute to named authorities. Section 12(5) of the Act postulates that on receipt and consideration of a report from the conciliation Page 28 of 68 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 00:26:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1177/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026 undefined officer, if the g Government is satisfied that there is a case for reference to the Board, Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, it may make such reference. Where the appropriate Government does not make such a reference it shall record reasons therefor and communicate to the parties concerned.
4. A conjoint reading, therefore, would yield to the conclusion that on making an application for reference, it would be open to the State Government to form an opinion whether industrial dispute exists or is apprehended and then either to make a reference to the appropriate authorities or refuse to make the reference. Only on rejection thereof, the order needs to be communicated to the applicant. Nonetheless the order is a only an administrative order and not a quasi-judicial order. When it rejects, it records reasons as indicated in sub-section (5) of Section 12 of the Act. The appropriate Government is entitled to go into the question whether an industrial dispute exists or is apprehended. It would be only a subjective satisfaction on the basis of the material on record. Being an administrative order no lis is involved. Thereby there is no need to issue any notice to the b employer nor to hear the employer before making a reference or refusing to make a reference. Sub-Page 29 of 68 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 00:26:08 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1177/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026 undefined section (5) of Section 12 of the Act does not enjoin the appropriate Government to record reasons for making reference under Section 10(1). It enjoins to record reasons only when it refuses to make a reference.
5. The need for hearing is obviated, if it is considered on second c occasion as even then if it makes reference, it does not cease to be an administrative order and so is not incumbent upon the State Government to record reasons therein. Therefore, it is not necessary to issue notice to the employer nor to consider his objections nor to hear him before making a reference. Accordingly, we are of the view that the High Court was wholly wrong in its conclusion that before making reference on second application, d it was incumbent upon the State Government to give notice to the employer and to give an opportunity to the employer and record reasons for making reference. The previous decision of that Court relied on in the case at hand was wrongly decided."
35. In case of Telco Convoy Drivers Mazdoor Sangh and Another v/s. State of Bihar and Others(supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the appropriate Government must Page 30 of 68 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 00:26:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1177/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026 undefined refrain from entering into adjudicatory domain as the Assistant Labour Commissioneris not vested with the authority to adjudicate upon the merits of the dispute as to whether employee is a 'workman' or not as he is only required to form an opinion as to whether any dispute exits or is apprehended without deciding any part of the dispute itself.
36. The contention raised on behalf of the appellant that while forming an opinion by the appropriate Government that dispute exists or is apprehended it would be necessary to find out as to whether complaint made by respondent no.3 would fall within the definition of 'workman' under section 2(s) of the ID Act or not, is not tenable in view of ratio laid down in case of Telco Convoy Drivers Mazdoor Sangh and Another v/s. State of Bihar and Others(supra) inasmuch as respondent no.2 being an appropriate Page 31 of 68 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 00:26:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1177/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026 undefined Government has to ascertain the actual existence of the dispute between the employer and the employee and whether the employee is a 'workman' or not is entirely within the domain of the Labour Court. Therefore, respondent no.2 has rightly not recorded any findings on merits of the case regarding employer-employee relationship between respondent no.3 and the appellant company by adjudicating the same while forming an opinion that there exists an industrial dispute.
37. The definition of "industrial dispute"
as per section 2(k) of the ID Act is clear and unambiguous which stipulates that any dispute or difference between the employers and employers, or between employers and workmen, or between workmen and workmen which is connected with the employment or non-
employment or the terms of employment or Page 32 of 68 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 00:26:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1177/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026 undefined with the conditions of labour of any person which would include termination of service of respondent no.3 and therefore, respondent no.2 is only required to form an opinion that industrial dispute exists and thereafter refer it to the Labour Court as per section 10(1)(c) of the ID Act.
38. In view of the judgment in case of Telco Convoy Drivers Mazdoor Sangh and Another v/s. State of Bihar and Others(supra), it is by now well settled legal position that while exercising the powers under section 10 of the ID Act, respondent no.2 while discharging the function of appropriate Government, is not required to go into the merits of the dispute to find out whether respondent no.3 is a 'workman' or not and once it is found that industrial dispute exists, then it is incumbent upon respondent no.2 to make reference without deciding the merits of the Page 33 of 68 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 00:26:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1177/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026 undefined dispute because to decide the merits as to whether respondent no.3 is a 'workman' or not, falls within the domain of adjudication on merits by the Labour Court.
39. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Telco Convoy Drivers Mazdoor Sangh and Another v/s. State of Bihar and Others(supra) while considering the question of making a reference under section 10(1) of the ID Act, held that the appropriate Government is required to form an opinion as to whether the industrial dispute exists or is apprehended but it is not entitled to adjudicate the dispute itself on merits as such function discharged by the appropriate Government is an administrative function and not a judicial or quasi-judicial function. It was therefore, held that while discharging administrative function, appropriate Government i.e. respondent no.2 cannot delve into the merits Page 34 of 68 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 00:26:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1177/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026 undefined of the dispute and take upon itself the determination of lis which would ultimately result in discharging excess of power conferred by section 10 of the ID Act. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:
"11. It is true that in considering the question of making a reference under Section 10(1), the government is entitled to form an opinion as to whether an industrial dispute "exists or is apprehended", as urged by Mr Shanti Bhushan. The formation of opinion as to whether an industrial dispute "exists or is apprehended" is not the same thing as to adjudicate the dispute itself on its merits. In the instant case, as already stated, the dispute is as to whether the convoy drivers are employees or workmen of TELCO, that is to say, whether there is relationship of employer and employees between TELCO and the convoy drivers. In considering the question whether a reference should be made or not, the Deputy Labour Commissioner and/or the government have held that the convoy drivers are not workmen and, accordingly, no reference can be made. Thus, the dispute has been decided by the government which is, Page 35 of 68 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 00:26:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1177/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026 undefined undoubtedly, not permissible.
12. It is, however, submitted on behalf of TELCO that unless there is relationship of employer and employees or, in other words, unless those who are raising the disputes are workmen, there cannot be any existence of industrial dispute within the meaning of the term as defined in Section 2(k) of the Act. It is urged that in order to form an opinion as to whether an industrial dispute exists or is apprehended, one of the factors that has to be considered by the government is whether the persons who are raising the disputes are workmen or not within the meaning of the definition as contained in Section 2(k) of the Act.
13. Attractive though the contention is, we regret, we are unable to accept the same. It is now well settled that, while exercising power under Section 10(1) of the Act, the function of the appropriate government is an administrative function and not a judicial or quasi-judicial function, and that in performing this administrative function the government cannot delve into the merits of the dispute and take upon itself the determination of the lis, which would certainly be in excess of the power conferred on it by Section 10 of Page 36 of 68 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 00:26:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1177/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026 undefined the Act."
40. Similarly, decision in case of Union of India and another v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana reported in 2006(12) SCC 28, relied upon by the appellant would not apply to the facts of the case as the issue which has been raised in this appeal operates in different sphere as the dispute is governed by a special statute i.e. ID Act which prescribes for reference of dispute as per section 10 of Chapter III of the ID Act whereas decision of Hon'ble Apex Court deals with the provisions of Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 in context of challenge to charge-sheet or show cause notice.
41. Reliance placed by the appellant in the decision in case of National Engineering Industries Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan and others reported in (2000) 1 Supreme Court Page 37 of 68 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 00:26:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1177/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026 undefined Cases 371 for entertaining the writ petition is also not applicable in facts of the case because it is true that High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition when there is an allegation that there is no industrial dispute and none apprehended which could be the subject matter of reference for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court under section 10 of the Act. However, to entertain such a petition when the contention is raised regarding the dispute on the ground that the employee is not a 'workman' would fall within the realm of adjudication upon the facts of the case on merits which would be outside the domain of the appropriate government i.e. respondent no.2 who is discharging administrative function under section 10(1) of the ID Act. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:
"24. It will be thus seen that the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition Page 38 of 68 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 00:26:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1177/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026 undefined when there is an allegation that there is no industrial dispute and none apprehended which could be the subject-matter of reference for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal under Section 10 of the Act. Here it is a question of jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal, which could be examined by the High Court in its writ jurisdiction.
It is the existence of the Industrial Tribunal (sic dispute) which would clothe the appropriate Government with power to make the reference and the Industrial Tribunal to adjudicate it. If there is no industrial dispute in existence or apprehended the appropriate Government lacks power to make any reference. A settlement of dispute between the parties themselves is to be preferred, where it could be arrived at, to industrial adjudication, as the settlement is likely to lead to more lasting peace than an award. Settlement is arrived at by the free will of the parties and is a pointer to there being goodwill between them. When there is a dispute that the settlement is not bona fide in nature or that it has been arrived at on account of fraud, misrepresentation or concealment of facts or even corruption and other inducements it could be the subject-matter of yet another industrial dispute which Page 39 of 68 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 00:26:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1177/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026 undefined an appropriate Government may refer for adjudication after examining the allegations as there is an underlying assumption that the settlement reached with the help of the Conciliation Officer must be fair and reasonable. A settlement which is sought to be impugned has to be scanned and scrutinised. Sub-sections (1) and (3) of Section 18 divide settlements into two categories, namely, (1) those arrived at outside the conciliation proceedings, and (2) those arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings. A settlement which belongs to the first category has a limited application in that it merely binds the parties to the agreement h but the settlement belonging to the second category has an extended application since it is binding on all the parties to the industrial disputes, to all others who were summoned to appear in the conciliation proceedings and to all persons employed in the establishment or part of the establishment, as a the case may be, to which the dispute related on the date of the dispute and to all others who joined the establishment thereafter. A settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings with a recognised majority union will be binding Page 40 of 68 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 00:26:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1177/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026 undefined on all workmen of the establishment, even those who belong to the minority union which had objected to the same. The recognised union having the majority of members is expected to protect the legitimate interest b of the labour and enter into a settlement in the best interest of the labour.
This is with the object to
uphold the sanctity of
settlement reached with the
active assistance of the
Conciliation Officer and to
discourage an individual
employee or a minority union from scuttling the settlement. When a settlement is arrived at during the conciliation proceedings it is binding on the members of the Workers' Union as laid down by Section 18(3)(d) of the Act. It would ipso facto bind all the existing workmen who are all parties to the industrial dispute and who may not be members of unions that are signatories to such settlement under Section 12(3) of the Act. The Act is based on the principle of collective bargaining for resolving industrial disputes and for maintaining industrial peace. "This principle of industrial democracy is the bedrock of the Act," as pointed out in the case of P. d Virudhachalam v. Lotus Mills [(1998) 1 SCC 650]. In all these negotiations based on Page 41 of 68 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 00:26:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1177/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026 undefined collective bargaining the individual workman necessarily recedes to the background. Settlements will encompass all the disputes existing at the time of the settlement except those specifically left out."
42. Reliance placed on the decision in case of ANZ Grindlays Bank Ltd. v Union of India and others reported in (2005) 12 Supreme Court Cases 738 by the appellant to contend that High Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction will have power to interfere with an order making reference where futility in the order of Reference can be demonstrated from bare reading of the reference is concerned, the same would not be applicable in facts of the case inasmuch as to determine whether respondent no.3 is a 'workman' or not cannot be adjudicated by the appropriate government to form an opinion that industrial dispute exists or not as the Labour Court while discharging the judicial function would Page 42 of 68 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 00:26:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1177/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026 undefined determine on the facts and evidence of the case as to whether respondent no.3 can be said to be a 'workman' or not. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:
"11. The principal issue, which requires consideration, is whether the Central Government was justified in making a reference to the Industrial Tribunal in the terms set out earlier. Section 2(k) of the Act defines "industrial dispute" and it means any dispute or difference between employers and employers, or between employers and workmen, or between workmen and workmen, which is connected with the employment or non-employment or the terms of employment or with the conditions of labour, of any person. The definition uses the word "dispute".
The dictionary meaning of the word "dispute" is: to contend any argument; argue for or against something asserted or maintained. In Black's Law Dictionary the meaning of the word "dispute" is: a conflict or controversy, specially one that has given rise to a particular lawsuit. In Advanced Law Lexicon by P. Ramanatha Aiyar the meaning given is: claim asserted by one party and denied by the other, be the claim false or true; the term "dispute" in its wider sense may mean the wranglings or quarrels between the Page 43 of 68 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 00:26:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1177/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026 undefined parties, one party asserting and the other denying the liability. In Gujarat State Coop. Land b Development Bank Lid. v. P.R. Mankad it was held that the term "dispute" means a controversy having both positive and negative aspects. It postulates the assertion of a claim by one party and its denial by the other.
12. A plain reading of the reference made by the Central Government would show that it does not refer to any dispute or apprehended dispute between the Bank and the Federation (the second respondent). It does not c refer to any demand or claim made by the Federation or the alleged refusal thereof by the Bank. In such circumstances, it is not possible to hold that on account of the settlement dated 18-8-1996 arrived at between the Bank and the Association (the third respondent), any dispute or apprehended dispute had come into existence between the Bank and the Federation (the second respondent). The action of the Bank in asking for a receipt from those employees, who are not members of the Association (the third respondent) but wanted to avail of the benefit of the settlement, again does not give rise to any kind of dispute between the Bank and the Federation (the second respondent). Thus, the reference made by the Central Government by the order dated 29-12-1997 for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal is wholly Page 44 of 68 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 00:26:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1177/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026 undefined redundant and uncalled for.
13. There is another aspect of the matter which deserves consideration. The settlement dated 18-8-1996 had already worked itself out and a fresh settlement had been arrived at between the Bank and the Association (the third respondent) on 16-11- 1999. The members of the Association (the third respondent) and other employees, who availed of the benefit of the settlement, have received payments in terms thereof. Some of the employees have already retired from service. Even if the settlement is set aside, the Federation (the second respondent) would not gain in any manner as no enforceable award can be given in its favour, which may be capable of execution. On the contrary the appellant Bank would be a big loser as it will not only be very difficult but almost impossible for the Bank to recover the monetary benefits already paid to its employees under the settlement. We are, 9 therefore, of the opinion that the reference made by the Central Government is wholly uncalled for and deserves to be set aside.
14. Mr. Bhat, learned Counsel for the second respondent, has submitted that this Court should not interfere with the order of the Central Government making a reference under Section 10 of the Act, as the appellant can ventilate its Page 45 of 68 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 00:26:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1177/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026 undefined grievances before the Industrial Tribunal itself and if the decision of the Tribunal goes against the appellant, the same may be challenged in accordance with law. According to learned counsel the writ petition is premature as the appellant has got a remedy before the Tribunal to show that a the reference is either bad in law or is uncalled for. We are unable to accept the submission made. It is true that normally a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution should not be entertained against an order of the appropriate Government making a reference under Section 10 of the Act, as the parties would get opportunity to lead evidence before the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal and to show that the claim made is either unfounded or b there was no occasion for making a reference. However, this is not a case where the infirmity in the reference can be shown only after evidence has been adduced. In the present case the futility of the reference made by the Central Government can be demonstrated from a bare reading of the terms of the reference and the admitted facts. In such circumstances, the validity of the reference made by the Central Government can be examined in c proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution as no evidence is required to be considered for examining the issue raised.
Page 46 of 68 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 00:26:08 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1177/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026 undefined
15. In National Engg. Industries Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan[(2000) 1 SCC 371] this Court held as under in para 24 of the Report: (SCC p. 393) "24. It will be thus seen that the High Court has jurisdiction to d entertain a writ petition when there is an allegation that there is no industrial dispute and none apprehended which could be the subject-matter of reference for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal under Section 10 of the Act. Here it is a question of jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal, which could be examined by the High Court in its writ jurisdiction.
It is the existence of the Industrial Tribunal (sic dispute) which would clothe the appropriate Government with power to make the reference and the Industrial Tribunal to adjudicate it."
43. Similarly, reliance placed on the decision in case of Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited v. State of Jharkhand and others reported in (2014) 1 Supreme Court Cases 536 would also not come to the help of the appellant company as the terms of reference in facts of the case reflect real Page 47 of 68 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 00:26:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1177/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026 undefined exact nature of dispute between the parties.
44. Reliance placed on the decision of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in case of Birla Corporation Ltd. Sramik Union v. Biral Corporation Ltd. and others reported in 2008 SCC OnLine Cal 649 would also not be applicable in facts of the case as it is held in the said decision that on face of the order of reference it should appear that the same does not constitute an industrial dispute within the meaning of Section 2(k) of the ID Act. However, in the present case, respondent no.2 has arrived at an opinion that the dispute exists between the parties and thereafter has made a reference to the Labour Court.
45. The contention raised on behalf of the appellant that respondent no.2 is required to form an opinion whether an employee is a Page 48 of 68 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 00:26:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1177/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026 undefined workman and thereafter has to consider whether industrial dispute exists or is apprehended on the basis of decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Secretary, Indian Tea Association V. Ajit Kumar Barat and Others(supra) would also not be applicable in facts of the case inasmuch as the Hon'ble Apex Court in the said case has laid down the proposition of law in context of section 12(5) of the ID Act vis-a-vis refusal to register the reference and not making reference under section 10(1) of the ID Act. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:
"7. The law on the point may briefly be summarised as follows:
1. The appropriate Government would not be justified in making a reference under Section 10 of the Act without satisfying itself on the facts and circumstances brought to its notice that an industrial dispute exists or is apprehended Page 49 of 68 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 00:26:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1177/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026 undefined and if such a reference is made it is desirable wherever possible, for the Government to indicate the nature of dispute in the order of reference.
2. The order of the appropriate Government making a reference under Section 10 of the Act is an administrative order and not a judicial or quasi-judicial one and the court, therefore, cannot canvass the order of the reference closely to see if there was any material before the Government to support its conclusion, as if it was a judicial or quasi-judicial order.
3. An order made by the appropriate Government under Section 10 of the Act being an administrative order no lis is involved, as such an order is made on the subjective satisfaction of the Government.
4. If it appears from the reasons given that the appropriate Government took into account any consideration irrelevant or foreign material, the court may in a given case consider the case for a writ of mandamus.
5. It would, however, be open to a party to show that what was referred by the Government was not an industrial dispute within Page 50 of 68 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 00:26:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1177/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026 undefined the meaning of the Act.
xxx
10. Before making a reference under Section 10 of the Act the appropriate Government has to form an opinion whether an employee is a workman and thereafter has to consider as to whether an industrial dispute exists or is apprehended."
46. Section 12 of the ID Act provides for duties of Conciliation Officer. Sub-section (5) of section 12 provides that 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 to Labour Court, it may make such reference. However, where the appropriate Government does not make such a reference, it shall record and communicate to the parties concerned its reasons thereof.
47. Therefore, conjoint reading of section 10(1) with section 12(5) of the ID Act clearly provides that when the appropriate Page 51 of 68 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 00:26:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1177/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026 undefined Government is of the opinion that industrial dispute exists then it has to refer the dispute to the Labour Court only without specifying as to how such dispute exists as it would amount to adjudicating on merits. However, when the appropriate Government forms an opinion that there does not exist a dispute or is not apprehended then in such circumstances, while rejecting the reference it has to record the reasons for arriving at such conclusion.
48. Therefore, it is true that formation of opinion for existence of an industrial dispute exists or is apprehended, is a condition precedent to refer the dispute to the Labour Court under section 10(1) of the ID Act, however, merely because the matter is referred to the Labour Court by respondent no.2, it cannot be said that the same is made mechanically without forming an opinion Page 52 of 68 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 00:26:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1177/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026 undefined because making a reference presupposes formation of opinion which is not required to be reduced in writing with reason as it would amount to adjudication of the merits of the case.
49. Reliance was placed on the decision in case of Prabhakar v. Joint Director, Sericulture Department and Another (supra) and in case of Oshiar Prasad and others v. Employers in relation to Management of Sudamdih Coal Washery of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad, Jharkhand reported in (2015) 4 Supreme Court Cases 71 which are rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in different context as it refers to the dispute which is not between the employer and the 'workman'. The appellant company is therefore required to agitate such contention before the Labour Court as observed by learned Single Judge as under:
Page 53 of 68 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 00:26:08 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1177/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026 undefined "14. When the appropriate Government makes reference of industrial dispute for adjudication, it does not decide the question of fact or law. The only condition, which the exercise of that power should satisfy, is that there should be existence of or apprehension of an industrial dispute. The employee employer relationship is the very foundation of jurisdiction of learned Court and it has to be determined on the basis of conclusive evidence on full consideration of all aspect of matter.
15. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that no error can be found in the administrative decision of the learned Assistant Labour Commissioner in referring the dispute to the learned Labour Court, Vadodara. The question as to whether the respondent No.3 qualifies as a 'workman' under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as well as the genuineness or otherwise of the alleged resignation, are disputed questions of fact which can only be determined upon adjudication by the appropriate forum. Hence, the present petition fails and deserves to be dismissed."
50. Therefore, in facts of the case, respondent no.2 is not required to form an Page 54 of 68 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 00:26:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1177/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026 undefined opinion as to whether respondent no.3 is a 'workman' or not but respondent no.2 as an appropriate Government is required to form an opinion as to whether dispute exists or is apprehended and thereafter pass an ordrin writing to refer the same.
51. The contention on behalf of the appellant that no affidavit in reply was filed by the appropriate Government is also not relevant as the affidavit in reply filed by respondent No.2 - Assistant Labour Commissioner as while making reference, he was discharging duties as an appropriate Government only. It cannot be said that report as contemplated under section 12(4), if no settlement is arrived at before the Conciliation Officer, failure report is to be filed by respondent no.2 together with full facts and circumstances and such report is required to be placed on record. Page 55 of 68 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 00:26:08 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1177/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026 undefined
52. The averments made in para 12 of the affidavit in reply was later on modified as an inadvertent mistake on part of respondent no.2 by filing affidavit dated 14.06.2025.
53. The contention raised on behalf of the appellant that there was non-application of mind on part of the respondent authority is also not tenable and reliance placed on decision in case of reported in Nedungadi Bank Ltd. v. K.P. Madhavankutty and others reported in (2000) 2 Supreme Court Cases 455 wherein it is held that an administrative order which does not take into consideration statutory requirements or travels outside that is certainly subject to judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, would also not be applicable in facts of the case as the reference is made by the appropriate Government on formation of Page 56 of 68 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 00:26:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1177/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026 undefined opinion that industrial dispute exists between the parties.
54. The contention of the appellant company that respondent no.3 was working as "Senior Executive/Manager Administration - Supervisor" in the appellant company delves into merits of the case and therefore, same is rightly not adjudicated by the appropriate Government while forming an opinion that industrial dispute exists between the parties.
55. The appellant is therefore, entitled to raise contention as to whether respondent no.3 falls within the purview of definition of "workman" under section 2(s) of the ID Act or not before the Labour Court and therefore, said contention is rightly not dealt with by the Learned Single Judge as it would result in adjudication on merits which is required Page 57 of 68 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 00:26:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1177/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026 undefined to be canvassed before the Labour Court by the appellant company.
56. Similarly, the contention of the appellant that respondent no.3 has voluntarily resigned from service and therefore, no industrial dispute exists between the parties for which reference is required, would also be within the realm of merits and the facts of the case and therefore, the decisions relied upon by the appellant are required to be cited before the Labour Court when the reference is adjudicated on merits.
57. The contention raised on behalf of the appellant that the order of reference depends on subjective satisfaction arrived at by the appropriate Government and same should be subject to judicial review if it is shown that there was no material before the Page 58 of 68 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 00:26:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1177/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026 undefined appropriate Government to form an opinion that industrial dispute exists or it has not applied mind to the material before it, is not tenable in the facts of the case, as the appellant has referred to decision in case of Prabhakar v. Joint Director, Sericulture Department and Another (supra) and in case of M/s. Hotchief Gammon v. State of Orissa and others reported in (1975) 2 SCC 649 to contend that writ Court is required to scrutinise the order of making reference by the appropriate Government would not be applicable in facts of the case as the said cases are decided on refusal for making the reference and not while making a reference by the appropriate Government forming an opinion that there exists industrial dispute between the parties. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Prabhakar v. Joint Director, Sericulture Department and Another (supra) has held as under:
Page 59 of 68 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 00:26:08 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1177/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026 undefined "10. Before we proceed to deal with the aforesaid questions, it would be proper to discuss the power of "appropriate Government" under Section 10 of the Act in referring or refusing to refer the dispute for adjudication. It is a peculiar position provided under the Act that an aggrieved workman cannot approach the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal directly for adjudication of "industrial dispute". Except those cases falling under Section 2-
A of the Act, he has to seek reference of dispute to the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal under Section 10 of the Act. "Appropriate Government", as defined under Section 2(a) of the Act, is empowered to refer the dispute.
Section 10(1) stipulates that "appropriate Government" may, at any time, by order in writing, refer the dispute to a Board, Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal where "it is of the opinion that any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended". Interpreting this Section, way back in the year 1953, this Court in State of Madras v. C.P. Sarathy [AIR 1953 SC 53] stated the following propositions: (AIR p. 57, para 14)
(i) The Government should satisfy itself, on the facts and circumstances brought to its notice, in its subjective opinion that an "industrial dispute" exists or is Page 60 of 68 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 00:26:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1177/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026 undefined "apprehended";
(ii) the factual existence of a dispute or its apprehension and the expediency of making reference are matters entirely for the Government to decide;
(iii) the order making a reference is an administrative act and it is not a judicial or a quasi-judicial act; and
(iv) the order of reference passed by the Government cannot be examined by the High Court in its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to see if the Government had material before it to support the conclusion that the dispute existed or was apprehended.
These propositions were based on unamended Act which did not contain the words "where the appropriate Government is of the opinion".
11. In Western India Match Co. Ltd. v. Workers' Union,[(1970) 1 SCC 225] this Court took support of C.P. Sarathy cases to hold that function of the appropriate Government to make reference under Section 10(1) is an administrative function. This view that the appropriate Government is performing an administrative act and not judicial or quasi-judicial act while making reference is found in various judicial pronouncements made by this Court even thereafter. Page 61 of 68 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 00:26:08 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1177/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026 undefined
12. The satisfaction of the existence of an industrial dispute or the satisfaction that an industrial dispute is apprehended is "a condition precedent to the order of reference". An order of reference cannot be made mechanically without forming an opinion. For formation of the necessary opinion, the "appropriate Government" must also be satisfied that a person whose dispute is being referred for adjudication is a "workman". If the dispute is not between an employer and his workman, it is not an "industrial a dispute" and the Government can justifiably refuse to refer the dispute. From the material placed before it, the Government reaches an administrative decision whether there exists an existing or apprehended industrial dispute. In either event, it can exercise the power under this Section.
13. The adequacy or the sufficiency of the material on which the opinion was formed is beyond the pale of judicial scrutiny. If the action of the b Government in making the reference is impugned by a party, it would be open to such a party to show that what was referred was not an industrial dispute and that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to make the award. But if the dispute was an industrial dispute, its factual existence and the expediency of making a reference in the Page 62 of 68 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 00:26:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1177/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026 undefined circumstances of a particular case are matters entirely for the Government to decide upon and it will not be competent for c the Court to hold the reference bad and quash the proceedings for want of jurisdiction merely because there was, in its opinion, no material before the Government on which it could have come to an affirmative conclusion on those matters.
14. When the "appropriate Government" makes a reference of an industrial dispute for adjudication, it does not decide any question of fact or d law. The only condition, which the exercise of that power should satisfy, is that there should be the existence or apprehension of an industrial dispute. When once the Government is satisfied about this question, it acquires jurisdiction to refer the dispute for adjudication. However, the condition precedent to the formation of such opinion, that there should be an existing or apprehended "industrial dispute", is imperative and the recitals of the existence or apprehension of the industrial dispute cannot preclude the Court to exercise its power of judicial review and to determine whether, in fact, there was any material before the "appropriate Government" and if there was; whether the Government applied its mind in coming to the conclusion that an industrial dispute was in existence or was Page 63 of 68 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 00:26:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1177/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026 undefined apprehended and it was expedient to make the reference. Therefore, an order of reference is open to judicial review if it is shown that the appropriate Government had no material before it or it has not applied its mind to the material before it or has not taken into consideration certain vital facts which it ought to have taken into consideration.
Xxx
17. From the aforesaid discussion, it clearly follows that even when making a reference by the appropriate Government is an administrative act, before making such a reference it has to form an opinion as to whether any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended. While forming this opinion, the appropriate Government is supposed to take all relevant facts into consideration touching upon this aspect. If the power is not exercised properly, it is amenable to judicial review. Thus, where an industrial dispute exists or is apprehended, but the appropriate Government refuses to make reference, such a refusal can be challenged in the court of law. Conversely, which is equally true, if the reference is made even when no dispute exists or is apprehended, such a reference will also be subject to judicial review.
Page 64 of 68 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 00:26:08 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1177/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026 undefined
18. We may refer to the judgment in Indian Tea Assn. v. Ajit Kumar Barat [(2000) 3 SCC 93]. In that case, the "appropriate Government" refused to make a reference on the ground that the employee concerned who had raised the dispute was not "workman" within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act. While doing so, the Government considered the salary and allowances drawn by the employee as well as the nature of work performed by him, including his power to sanction expenses incurred by his Office. The employee concerned (the respondent in the said case) filed a writ petition against the order of the appropriate Government refusing to make reference and the High Court in that writ petition directed the Government to make the reference as to whether he was a workman. The appeal filed by the appellant therein was also dismissed and in these circumstances the appellant preferred special leave petition and that is how the matter came up for consideration before this Court.
Granting leave and ultimately
allowing the appeal of the
appellant, this Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and upheld the order of the Government refusing to make reference. Relying upon its earlier judgment in C.P. Sarathy, Prem Kakar v. State of Haryana [(1976) 3 SCC 433] , and Sultan Singh v. State of Haryana [(1996) 2 SCC 66] , the Court observed that the order under Section 10 of the Act was an Page 65 of 68 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 00:26:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1177/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026 undefined administrative order and the Government was entitled to go into the question whether industrial dispute exists or is apprehended and it will be only subjective satisfaction on the basis of material on records and being an administrative order no lis is involved."
58. Learned advocate for the appellant has failed to cite any decision that while making a reference, as to whether the appropriate Government is required to record the reasons under section 10(1) of the Act and therefore, it cannot be said that appropriate Government has not formed any opinion.
59. Regarding reference to section 2A of the ID Act by learned Single Judge, it is true that same would not be applicable in facts of the case but same is dealt as section 2A was referred by learned AGP appearing for the appropriate Government.
60. We are therefore, of the opinion that Page 66 of 68 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 00:26:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1177/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026 undefined formation of opinion by the appropriate Government that their exists industrial dispute or same is apprehended, there is no set format nor the appropriate government is required to adjudicate as to whether the employee would fall within the definition of section 2(s) of the Act as 'workman' or not as the same would result into adjudication on merits.
61. We are therefore of the opinion that learned Single Judge has not committed any error while dismissing the petition of the appellant company inasmuch as it would be open for the appellant company to raise all such contentions before the Labour Court as is clarified even by learned Single Judge while dismissing the petition.
62. The appeal, therefore, being devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed. Civil Page 67 of 68 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 00:26:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1177/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026 undefined Application also stands disposed of.
(BHARGAV D. KARIA, J) (L. S. PIRZADA, J) RAGHUNATH R NAIR Page 68 of 68 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 00:26:08 IST 2026