SIRSILK LIMITED THE SIRPUR PAPER MILLS LIMITED Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH:GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three appeals on certificates raise the same question and will be dealt with together. It will be enough to refer to the facts of one appeal only, i.e. No. 220, to understand the point arising for decision, the facts in the other appeals being similar.

(2.) Briefly the facts in appeal No. 220 are that an order referring certain disputes between the appellant and its workmen was made to the Industrial Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh on June 6, 1956. The tribunal sent its award to Government in September 1957. Under S. 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, No. XIV of 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the award has to be published by the appropriate government within a period of thirty days from the date of its receipt by the government in such manner as the government thinks fit. Before however the Government could publish the award under S. 17, the parties to the dispute which had been referred for adjudication came to a settlement and on October 1, 1957, a letter was written to Government signed jointly on behalf of the employer and the employees intimating that the dispute which had been pending before the tribunal had been settled and a request was made to Government not to publish the award. The Government however expressed its inability to withhold the publication of the award, the view taken by the Government being that S. 17 of the Act was mandatory and the Government was bound to publish the award. Thereupon the appellants filed writ petitions before the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution praying that the Government may be directed not to publish the award sent to it by the industrial tribunal. The High Court held that S. 17 was mandatory and it was not open to Government to withhold publication of an award sent to it by an industrial tribunal. Therefore it was not open to the High Court to direct the Government not to publish the award when the law enjoined upon it to publish it. The writ petitions were therefore dismissed. There were then applications for certificates which were granted and that is how the matter has come up before us.

(3.) The main contention on behalf of the appellants before us is that S. 17 of the Act when it provides for the publication of an award is directory and not mandatory. In the alternative, it is contended that even if S. 17 is mandatory some via media has to be found in view of the conflict that would arise between an award published under S. 17 (1) and a settlement which is binding under S. 18 (1) and therefore where there is a settlement which is binding under S. 18 (1), it would be open to the Government not to publish the award in these special circumstances.