Secretary, Indian Tea Association v. Ajit Kumar Barat

Core point: The Government’s choice to refer or refuse under Section 10 is an administrative decision. Courts do not re-decide it like a trial. Here, the State said the employee was not a workman and refused reference.

Result: The Supreme Court upheld the refusal. The High Court should not have ordered a reference. Appeal allowed.

1. Was the State right to refuse a reference under Section 10 because the respondent was not a “workman”?
2. Did the High Court err in directing the State to make a reference despite the decision being administrative?

• Administrative satisfaction: Forming an opinion under Section 10 is administrative, not judicial.
• Limited review: Courts interfere only if the decision rests on irrelevant or extraneous considerations.
• Workman test: Salary, allowances, and managerial duties can show a person is not a “workman”.

• Section 10 decision = administrative. Courts do not substitute their view unless irrelevant factors drive the decision.
• Workman status: On the materials—salary, perks, and managerial/administrative duties—the State reasonably held he was not a workman.
• HC’s error: It should not have directed a reference. The State’s refusal stood.

Forming an opinion under Section 10 is an executive function. Unless the State relies on irrelevant factors, courts will not force a reference. Clear managerial role negates “workman”.

• Clarifies the boundary between administration and adjudication in labour disputes.
• Gives a practical workman checklist: pay, powers, and functions.
• Guides High Courts on when not to order a reference.

• Section 10 = administrative satisfaction, not a mini-trial.
• Court check is narrow—only for irrelevant or perverse grounds.
• Managerial role + higher pay usually means not a “workman”.

Mnemonic: “ADMIN, NOT ORDER — MANAGER, NOT WORKMAN”

1. Admin: Section 10 is executive satisfaction.
2. Not Order: Court won’t compel reference unless irrelevant factors.
3. Manager: Salary + managerial duties defeat “workman”.

Issue: Can HC compel a Section 10 reference when State finds employee is not a workman?

Rule: Section 10 opinion is administrative; courts interfere only for irrelevant/foreign considerations.

Application: Materials showed managerial status; State’s refusal was reasonable; HC overstepped.

Conclusion: Appeal allowed; refusal upheld.

Section 10 (ID Act)

Government’s power to refer disputes for adjudication based on administrative satisfaction.

Workman

Employee mainly in manual/technical/clerical work; excludes supervisory/managerial/admin roles above limits.

Judicial review limits

Court checks only for irrelevant or extraneous grounds; no re-appreciation like a trial.