Summary
Section 2(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, properly construed, does not by itself confer the power on the appropriate Government to make a reference. That power is really contained in s. 10(i) of the Act. In deciding whether it should or should not make a reference under s.
12(5) of the Act the appropriate Government need not base its decision solely on the report of the conciliation officer, but is free to take into consideration all other relevant facts and circumstances under s. 10(1), and where it refused to make a reference it must record and com- municate its reasons therefore to the parties concerned.Such reasons, however, must be germane, and not extraneous or irrelevant, to the dispute.But in exercising such wide powers as are conferred by S.10(1), the appropriate Government must act fairly and reasonably and not in a punitive spirit, and although considerations of expediency may not be wholly excluded, it must not be swayed by any extraneous considerations.Consequently, in a case where the issues in dispute related to a claim of classification for specified employees and additional bonus and the sole ground on which the Government refused to refer the dispute for adjudication under s. 12(5) was that the employees had adopted go-slow tactics during the relevant year, although the company had nevertheless voluntarily paid three months' bonus for that year and the report of the conciliation officer was in favour of the employees, Held, that the Government acted on irrelevant considerations and its decision being wholly punitive in character a clear case for the issue of a writ of mandamus was made out.Held, further, that since the work done by the employees prima facie justified the claim for classification and it was in consonance with the practice prevailing in other comparable concerns, the misconduct of the respondents could be no ground for refusing reference as the claim was in regard to the future benefit to the employees.228 The claim of bonus being also prima facie justified by the profits earned during the relevant year in accordance with well settled principles of industrial adjudication, the order of refusal was in the nature of a punitive action that was wholly inconsistent with the object of the Act.See the full content of this document
Extract
State Of Bombay VS. K. P. Krishnan And Others. (And Connected Appeal)
PETITIONER: STATE OF BOMBAY Vs.RESPONDENT: K. P. KRISHNAN AND OTHERS. (AND CONNECTED APPEAL)DATE OF JUDGMENT: 18/04/1960BENCH: GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B.BENCH: GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B.SINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P.(CJ)KAPUR, J.L.SUBBARAO, K.WANCHOO, K.N.CITATION: 1960 AIR 1223CITATOR INFO : R 1964 SC1617 (6)RF 1967 SC 295 (60)RF 1969 SC 707 (50)R 1975 SC2226 (9)RF 1975 SC2238 (14)D 1976 SC1474 (8,10)E&R 1985 SC 915 (5)RF 1990 SC 255 (5)ACT: Industrial Dispute-Failure of conciliation--Appropriate Government's Power of reference-Order of refusal-Reasons, if must be germane to the issue-Classification-Bonus-Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), ss. 12(5), 10(1).JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 37 & 38 of 1957.Appeals from the judgment and order dated August 30, 1955, of the former Bombay High Court in Appeals Nos. 55 and 56 of 1955, arising out of the judgment and order dated June 23, 1955, of the said High Court in Misc. Application No. 80 of 1955.C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India, B. Ganapathy Iyer and R. H. Dhebar, for the appellant (in C. A. No. 37 of 57) and respondent No. 6 (in C. A. No. 38/57).S. D. Vimadalal and I. N. Shroff, for the appellant (in C.A. No. 38/57) and respondent No. 6 (in C. A. No. 37/57.) Rajni Patel, S. N. Andley, J. B. Dadachanji, Rameshwar Nath and P. L. Vohra, for respondents Nos.1 and 3 to 5 (in both the appeals).S. B. Naik and K. R. Chaudhuri, for respondent No. 2 (in both the appeals).1960. August 18. The Judgment of the Court was delivered byGAJENDRAGADKAR J.-These two appeals arise from an industrial dispute between the Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India Ltd., (hereafter called the company) and its workmen (hereafter called the respondents), and they raise a short and interesting question about the construction of s. 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act 14 of 1947 (hereafter called the Act). It appears that the respondents addressed four demands to the company; they were in respect of gratuity, holidays, classification of certain employees and for the payment of an unconditional bonus for the financial year ended October 31, 1953. The responde...
See the full content of this document