FREE PRESS LABOUR UNION, REPRESENTING THE WORKERS IN THE PRINTING AND DESPATCHING DEPARTMENTS OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS LIMITED, MOUNT ROAD, MADRAS, BY ITS PREMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATIONDENT S C C ANTHONY PILLAI Vs. STATE OF MADRAS, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There are three petitions by the workers' union of Spencer and Company, Limited, Express Newspapers Limited and the Swadesamitran Limited against the State of Madras under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issue of a Writ of Mandamus directing the State of Madras to refer the dispute between the workers and the managements to a Tribunal under Section 10(1)(c) or 10(2) of the industrial Disputes Act and prohibit under Section 10(3) the lock out of the employees effected by the management.

(2.) The point for determination in all the writs is the same and it is not necessary to recount in detail the facts relating to each of these petitions. It is sufficient if some of the relevant facts are referred to with reference to one of these cases, since the outstanding features in each case are practically common. I would therefore deal with the petition which was argued first that is writ petition No. 41 of 1951, filed by the Spencer Workers' Union.

(3.) Regarding certain grievances of the workers mainly relating to wages, dearness allowance and bonus, the Union convened a meeting of the workers on 22nd September 1950 and formulated their demands to the company. On the 27 September 1950 they addressed a letter to the Secretary of the Spencer and Company, Limited, formulating their demands and intimating to the company that the office-bearers of the Union were authorised to conduct negotiations with the company with a view to arrive at an amicable settlement, a copy of which communication was sent to the Labour Officer, Madras. The company refused to concede any of the demands. On 16th January 1951 the Labour Officer issued a notice under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act informing the Union that as an industrial dispute existed between the workers and the management of the company, the presence of the Union representative was necessary for effecting a speedy and amicable settlement of the same. The Labour Officer submitted his report on 25th January 1951 to the Secretary to Government development department, of the result of the Conciliation proceedings. The report discloses that agreement was reached on all the points except on three points, namely, wages, dearness allowance and leave facilities and that no decision was reached on the question of bonus. With reference to wages and scales of pay, the union offered to accept a minimum wage of Rs. 1-4-0 to all unskilled labourers, the maximum wages of the various categories being proportionately worked out by the management. Bat the management was not agreeable to concede this and the Labour Officer suggested whether the management would pay a minimum wage of Re. 1-0-0 per day, which has been accepted as the living wage of the day; but the management could not consider any more enhancement. Similarly there was no agreement as regards dearness allowance and bonus. On 22nd February 1951, the Union made an application to the Government that the disputes may be referred for adjudication by a Tribunal under Section 10(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. On the same day, the Union informed the company of the resolutions of the Union inviting the company for making a reference jointly with the Union to the Government to which the company replied by their letter of the 6th March 1951 stating that they are unable to make a joint application in respect of the matters, which, according to them, have been settled during the conciliation proceedings, and that as regards the three outstanding items, they will consider making a joint reference after a discussion with the representatives of the Union. The Commissioner of Labour intimated the union by his letter dated 10th April 1951 that the company have offered to increase the deamess allowance of the workers at Rs. 30 per month and of the Clerical Staff at Rs. 35 per month, and that he would advise the Union to be satisfied with the enhanced dearness allowances and to drop the other demands. Apparently, the Union did not agree and gave notice of strike on 9th May 1951. The company by its letter of the 6th June 1951 intimated that no increase can be granted in respect of the basic wages, dearness allowance and bonus and all workers who were absent without leave since 30th May 1951 were asked to show cause why an order of dismissal should not be passed against them. There is a further application by the Union to the Government dated 8th June 1951 asking for reference of the disputes to a tribunal under Section 10(2) of the Act. On 11th June 1951 the President of the Labour Union wrote to the company that at a meeting of the members of the Union; the advice of the Honourable the Chief Minister that the workers should return to work was accepted, since they were assured that the Government will ensure that there will be no victimisation of the employees and that they will take immediate steps to resolve the disputes between the workers and the management of the company and that the workers who are on strike will return for work on 12th June 1951. But the company put up a notice regretting its inability to re-engage all persons for duty on 12th June 1951 and stating that the workers should confirm, that the strike was withdrawn unconditionally and the company will then put up a notice as to the names of the persons who would be re-engaged, with reference to the alleged assurance given by the Hon'ble the Chief Minister to the Government of Madras it is stated on behalf of the Government that the allegation regarding the assurances given by the Hon'ble Chief Minister is not correct, but that Hon'ble Chief Minister only advised the workers to call off the strike and informed them that if they wanted it, the matter would be looked into by the Labour Com missioner, and that so far as the question of victimisation is concerned, the Hon'ble the Chief Minister assured them that he would see that Justice is done. The present petition was filed on 12th June 1951 and an order directing notice was made on the same day. On 13th June 1951 the Government Informed the President of the Union that, under Section 10(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, both the parties to the dispute will have to apply either jointly or separately for a reference of the dispute for adjudication and the Government can not therefore take any action on the application made only by the Union.