THE STATE OF MADRAS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Vs. THE SWADESAMITRAN PRINTERS LABOUR UNION REPRESENTING THE WORKERS EMPLOYED IN THE PRINTING AND DESPATCHING DEPARTMENT OF "SWADESAMITRAN LTD." AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three appeals under the Letters Patent are against the judgment of Krishnaswami Naydu J. disposing of three applications for the issue of writs of 'mandamus' directing the State of Madras to refer certain industrial disputes between the workers and the managements of the industrial concerns to an Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. These three petitions were filed by the workers of Messrs. Spencer and Co., Ltd., Express Newspapers Ltd., & the Swadesamitran Ltd. The facts which led to these applications are fully set out in the order under appeal and it is sufficient to mention only the material and salient facts which are necessary for the disposal of these appeals. It is common ground that the workers in these companies, made certain demands on the respective managements and these demands were not acceded to and the Commissioner of Labour as the Conciliation Officer appointed under the Industrial Disputes Act, XIV of 1947 commenced conciliation proceedings under Section 12(1) of the Act which runs as follows:

(2.) IN our opinion, these applications should have been disposed of on a very simple point. As it was common ground that proceedings under Section 12(1) of the Act had been initiated, obviously the further procedure enjoined by the Act had to be followed. It is not disputed that the Conciliation Officer did make attempts to investigate the dispute and try to induce the parties to come to an amicable settlement of the disputes. It is also clear that no settlement was arrived at. In such circumstances, Section 12(4) lays down that the Conciliation Officer shall as soon as practicable after the close of the investigation, send to the appropriate Government a full report setting forth the steps taken by him for ascertaining the facts and circumstances relating to the dispute and for bringing about a settlement thereof, together with a full statement of such facts and circumstances, and the reasons on account of which in his opinion, a settlement could not be arrived at. For the purpose of these appeals, we have to assume that the Conciliation Officer did send his reports, though it is doubtful if he sent them within the time prescribed by Sub -section (6) of Section 12, namely, within fourteen days of the commencement of the conciliation proceedings. Now, Section 12(5) lays down what should happen on receipt of such a report. It says:

(3.) IN the result, the appeals must be allowed to this extent namely, that the writs issued by the learned Judge against the State directing the State to refer the disputes for adjudication to an industrial tribunal should be set aside and In their stead writs of 'mandamus' should issue against the State of Madras directing them to discharge the duty cast on them under Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, namely, either to make a reference or to decide that there should be no reference in which ease reasons should be recorded and communicated to the parties concerned. There will be no order as to costs. We trust that the Government will act expeditiously in the matter having regard to the long lapse of time from the receipt of the reports from the Conciliation Officer. Order accordingly.