STATE OF

BOMBAY
v.
K.P.KRISHNAN
SANISHA GOEL
� When the reasons given by the government
for refusing to make a reference are
extraneous and not germane, then the court
can issue a writ of mandamus directing the
government to make a reference under Sec
10(1) read with section 12(5).
FACTS SUMMARY
� There was a dispute between the
Firestone Tyre & rubber Co. and its
workmen.
� The conciliation proceedings proved
infructuous.
� On receipt of the failure report of the
conciliation officer the government of
Bombay considered the matter and
decided not to refer it to an industrial
dispute for adjudication.
� Thegovernment communicated the
decision to the respondents u/s 12(5), I.D.
Act.

� The respondents filed a petition in the HC

for the issuance of a writ against the
government calling upon it to refer the
said dispute for industrial adjudication
under Section 10(1)and section 12 (5).
� The HC held that Sec 12(5) imposed an
obligation on the appellant to refer the
dispute provided it was satisfied that a case
for reference has been made.

� In the present case, it was held that the

reason given by the appellant for refusing to
make a reference was so extraneous and
that the respondents were entitled to a writ of
mandamus against the appellant.
ISSUE
� Thepetition was filed in the High Court for
the issuance of a writ against the
government calling upon it to refer the
said dispute for industrial adjudication
under section 10(1) and section 12(5).
OBSERVATION AND DECISION
�  The supreme court looked at section 12 (5)

�  Section 12(5) in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

�  (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.
� The SC observed a demarcation between
section 12(5) and section 10(1). When section
12(5) provides that the government may
make such a reference, it means it may
make such a reference under section 10(1).
As 12(5) is in a chapter dealing with
procedures, powers and duties of the
authorities under the act.

�  The court also pointed out that section 13(4)

further reaffirms that the power to make a
reference in regard to disputes referred to the
board are to be found in sec 10(1).
� Itwas observed that if the Government
comes to the conclusion that a prima
facie case for reference has been made
then it would be open to it to also
consider if there are any other relevant or
material facts justifying its refusal to make
a reference. The report by the conciliation
officer does not have to be the sole basis.

� Ifthe court is satisfied that the reasons

given by the government are irrelevant or
are unrelated to the issue it can issue a
writ of mandamus even in respect of such
an administrative order.
� The court recognized that even though
considerations of practicality cannot be
ruled out, it wouldn't allow the
Government to introduce irrelevant or
extraneous considerations under the
pretense of expediency.

�  The Government, however, can enquire if

the dispute brings up a claim which is old
or which is against the provisions of the
act or doesn’t align with any agreements
made between the parties.
�  The Government, however, cannot be
within its legitimate power in saying that it
doesn't approve of the political
affiliations, behaviors, manner or
appearance of the secretary of the
union. Such considerations must be
wholly excluded.

�  In the present case, the dispute wasn’t

solely on the grounds of misconduct of
the respondents as it is of importance
that they were paid three months bonus
voluntarily by the company even though
the workers had adopted go-slow tactics
�  The employees are entitled to claim
bonus based on profits seeing that they
contributed to the making of said profits.

�  Therefore, SC ruled that the High Court

did not make a mistake by holding that
the impugned decision of the
government is wholly punitive in nature
and must be seen as being based on
extraneous considerations.
The SC found this to be a fit case for writ
of mandamus.