STATE Vs. M N MEHROTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference by the Ses. J. of Allahabad recommending that the proceedings pending against the appcts. under Rule 81 (4), Defence of India Rules & various Ordinances be quashed as having abated. There is a similar reference made by the learned Ses. J. in respect of proceedings pending against another set of persons in or. Ref. No. 31 of 1950. The facts of the two references are common & they are being disposed of together.

(2.) The appcts. in the present reference are the managing director & other officers of the Central Bank of India, Ltd. while those in the other reference are the managing directors & other officers of the Hindustan Commercial Bank, Ltd.

(3.) On 12-10-1946, the Governor of U. P. in exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 81-A, Defence of India Rules, referred certain disputes existing between banks, including the Central Bank of India, Ltd. & the Hindustan Commercial Bank, Ltd., & their employees, for adjudication to the late Shri. B. B. Singh, the then Labour Comr. of the province. Shri Singh gave his award on the disputes on 11-3-1947, & it was enforced by the Govt. through their order dated 15-3-1947. The Govt. order contained the provision that any person contravening, or abetting the contravention of it was punishable under Rule 81-A (4), Defence of India Rules. Disputes again arose between the banks & their employees over the interpretation of the award. They were referred by one party or the other to the Govt. & Shri Singh who issued orders from time to time giving their interpretations. The interpretations were accepted by some banks but not by others. When some banks, including the two banks (the Central Bank of India & the Hindustan Commercial Bank), acted in accordance with their own interpretations & in desregard of the interpretations placed by the Govt. & Shri Singh, they were prosecuted under Rule 81-A (4), Defence of India Rules for the alleged contravention of the Govt. order of 15-8-1947. Those prosecutions are still pending. In 1947, the Govt. issued two Ordinances, Nos. 2 [II] & 13 [XIII] of 1947, conferring powers upon the Governor to refer industrial disputes for conciliation or adjudication and powers upon the Govt. to make an order for the continuance of an order previously made enforcing the decisions of an adjudicator or recommendation of a conciliator. In exercise of the latter power, the Govt. issued orders from time to time keeping the award of Shri Singh in force with certain modifications. The last order of the Govt. keeping the award in force is dated 13-9-1947. The Defence of India Rules having expired, there could be no prosecution under any provisions of them for contravention of the Govt. Order enforcing the award. The Ordinances, however, contained provisions to the effect that any person contravening any rule or order made under them would be punishable. A reference to this punitive provision of the earlier Ordinance No. 2 [II] (the latter Ordinance No. 13 simply replaced the earlier Ordinance which had expired after six months) is made in the Govt. Order dated 13-9-1947. In December 1947, the Provincial Legislature enacted U. P. Industrial Disputes Act XXVIII [28] of 1947 embodying the provisions of the Ordinances. On 31-7-1948, the Governor in exercise of the powers conferred under the Industrial Disputes Act appointed a Conciliation Board, presided over originally by Shri Nimbkar & on his death by Bind Basni Prasad J., to conciliate the disputes existing between the banks and their employees over the interpretation of Shri Singh's award & other matters. While the proceedings were pending in the Conciliation Board, the Govt. stayed the proceedings pending against the two banks under Rule 81-A (4), Defence of India Rules. The Conciliation Board framed 106 issues: 64 dealt with the interpretation of Shri Singh's award & 42 with its revision & additional matters. The Conciliation Board gave its report in February 1949 only dealing with 64 issues relating to the interpretation It did not deal at all with the remaining 42 issues. Thus it simply gave its own interpretation of the award, maintaining it intact. It did not revise or replace the award at all. On 30-4-1949, the Central Govt. passed an Ordinance No. 6 [VI] of 1949 conferring powers upon the Central Govt. in respect of disputes existing between the banks having branches or other establishments in more than one province & their employees. The Central Govt. did not want that disputes between such banks & their employees should be dealt with by different Provincial Govts. in different manners. Rule 4 of the Ordinance prohibits the Provincial Govts. from referring any industrial disputes concerning such banks to any authority or tribunal for adjudication, enquiry or settlement; that is a provision dealing with the future. Rule 5 is a provision dealing with the present; it lays down that where an industrial dispute has been referred by a Provincial Govt. to an authority or tribunal for adjudication or settlement, & proceedings in respect of it were pending on the date on which the Ordinance was passed, they will abate & the Central Govt. will appoint an All India Industrial Tribunal to deal with the disputes. Rule 6 deals with the past; it empowers the Central Govt. to refer a dispute, which has already been dealt with by an authority appointed by a Provincial Govt., to an All India Industrial Tribunal & to stay the implementation of the award or decision of the Provincial authority or tribunal.