KEVENTERS KARAMCHARISINGH Vs. LT GOVERNOR DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order dated May 20, 1968 of the Delhi Administration prohibiting the continuance of the strike by the petitioner Union which was passed in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (3) of section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has been challenged by this writ petition on three main grounds. Firstly, because sub-section (3) of section 10 of the said Act is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution; secondly, because the said order was not in compliance with the provisions of the said sub-section and thirdly, because the said order was passed at the instance of respondent No. 2 without affording any opportunity to the petitioners to show cause against it.

(2.) The petitioners are a union of workmen of Messrs Edward Keventer (s) Private, Limited. The first Respondent 1s the Lt. Govenor of Delhi and the second Respondent 1s the said company. Certain demands raised by the petitioners on December 20, 1967 were pending conciliation before the Conciliation Officer, Delhi. On April 1, 1968 while the conciliation proceedings were pending, the General Secretary of the petitioners served a notice of a strike upon the said company under sub-section (1) of section 22 of the said Act to be called on any day after the expiry of fourteen days of the receipt of the said notice. The three demands upon which reliance has been placed by the petitioners before us which gave rise to the said notice were :-

(3.) A copy of the said notice of strike was sent to various authorities and to the Delhi Administration. On May 20, 1968, the Delhi Administration referred various demands of the petitioners for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Delhi, in exercise of powers conferred by sections 10(l)(d) and 12(5) of the said Act. It is not disputed that the demand for bonus for the year 1966-67, being demand No 2 enumerated above and mentioned in the notice of strike, was referred for adjudication. The petitioners' complaint is that demands Nos. 1 and 3 mentioned above were not referred for adjudication. On the same date, May 20, 1968, the continuance of the strike which had been resorted to by the petitioners in pursuance of their aforesaid notice was prohibited by the impugned order on the ground that the dispute between the management and the workmen had been referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Delhi, for adjudication. It may here be stated that the said company had earlier by their letter dated May 10, 1968 written to the Conciliation Officer praying, inter alia, that prohibitory orders may be passed calling off the strike as it was the responsibility of the Government to protect public utility services to which category the said company admittedly belongs.