The petitioner is aggrieved with Ext.P9 order of the Central Government dated 26.3.2014 where the issue as to the “justification of the wages demanded by the Union” was referred to the third respondent for adjudication. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in fact the issue of wages of the casual labourers are fixed by various office orders which are applicable universally to all the Airports within the country. However that is a matter which would have to be appraised to the third respondent, when the reference comes up for adjudication.
2. The learned Senior Counsel for the second respondent Union submits that the order of reference is an administrative order and despite the same having been rejected once, there is no rule that it cannot be considered again.
3. As early as in State of Madras v. C.P. Sarathy & Another (AIR 1953 SC 53) it was held that in making a reference under section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Government is merely doing an administrative act, and the mere formation of an W.P.(C)No.18869 of 2014 2 opinion as to the existence of an industrial dispute does not clothe it with the character of a judicial or quasi-judicial determination. Benny Ltd. v. Their Workmen [(1972) 3 SCC 806] and Sultan Singh v. State of Haryana & Another [(1996) 2 SCC 66] held that the reference order only indicates a subjective satisfaction of the Government, on the basis of the material on record, and even a hearing is not required nor is a statement of reasons expedient. A prior refusal to refer the same dispute also cannot vitiate a subsequent reference was the finding. M/s. Avon Services Production Agencies (P) Ltd. v. Industrial Tribunal, Haryana & Others [(1979) 1 SCC 1] found that the refusal to refer once, would not bar a second reference, and that there need not be even fresh material to make such reference. A judicial scrutiny into the adequacy to form an opinion was held to be impermissible.
4. In such circumstances, there would be no purpose in keeping the writ petition pending. The petitioner would have liberty to raise all contentions before the Tribunal including the jurisdictional aspects.
The writ petition hence, would stand dismissed. No costs.
vpv Sd/-
K.VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE