Judgment:
ORDER
Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J.
1. The petitioner has sought for issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the communication dated 24.07.2008 at Annexure-E and for issue of a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to refer the dispute to the Central Industrial Tribunal and for such other reliefs, According to the petitioner, the petitioner is stated to have submitted a charter of demands on 06.11.2007 demanding the respondent to extend the revision of pay-scales and other allowances to the casual farm workers working throughout India. The respondents filed statement of objections before the Regional Labour Commissioner before whom the dispute was raised for which the petitioner-Union submitted an additional statement on 10.12.2007. Thereafter, conciliation proceedings were held and there was failure of conciliation. As such the petitioner made a representation to the Central Government to refer the dispute to the labour court for adjudication. The Government has refused to refer the dispute to the labour court on the ground that it is a policy matter that cannot be sought to be referred. Hence this petition.
2. Heard. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relying upon the decision reported in : AIR 1983 SC 915 in the case of Ram Avtar Sharma and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors. contended that although the Court cannot direct the reference to the labour court, it can direct the Government to consider the dispute for reference to the labour court on any charter of demands not accepted by the management and much leas a failure of the conciliation before the Conciliation Officer and it is an appropriate case in which the Central Government could have referred the dispute before the labour for adjudication.
3. Learned Counsel for the 1st respondent has submitted that the endorsement issued clearly depicts the fact that it is a policy matter for which there cannot be a concilation as there to no dispute to be adjudicated upon by the labour court and as and when it is feasible as per the policy of the Government, the grievance of the petitioner in general would be considered to grant such enhancement of pay -scales as well as other allowances and benefits. Learned Counsel further submits that it is well settled law that this Court cannot issue directions in matters of policy and the petitioner cannot seek for a reference to the labour court in consider the charter of demands submitted by it In this regard, he relied upon Rashtiya Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. and Anr. v. General Employees' Association and Ors., wherein the Apex Court held that the High Courts cannot straight away direct the appropriate Government to refer the dispute. It is for the appropriate Government to explain the relevant facts and satisfy itself as to the existence of the dispute before deciding to refer the dispute. In another decision reported in (2008) 2 SCC (L&S;) 190 in the case of Ministry of Textiles v. Murari Lal Gupta and Anr., wherein the Apex Court held referring to Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act that the High Court cannot direct the Government to make a reference to the industrial court and rather it is within the domain of the Government to decide as to in which case reference is to be made and in which case reference is not to be made.
4. Having heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties it is found that in the charter of demands the petitioner-Union has sought for revision of pay-scales to be extended to certain categories of workmen and grant of such other allowances which is a policy matter which purely falls within the purview of the Central Government to take a decision as and when it is found feasible. It is for the Government to accord permission as it involves financial implication and the 1st respondent has to implement the said decision with the concurrence of the Government of India and this cannot be directed by issue of a mandamus as it is a matter of policy. In the circumstances, the petition is dismissed as devoid of merits.