ATHERTAN MILLS Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. R. K. Trivedi, J. Facts giving rise to this petition are that on 7-6-1951, thirty five workmen were dismissed from service. They raised an industrial dispute. State of U. P. vide order dated 23-10-1951 took the view that an industrial dispute in respect of the matters hereinafter specified exists between the concern known as M/s. Athertan West and Company Ltd. , Kanpur and its workmen and whereas in the opinion of the Governor it is necessary so to do for the maintenance of the public order and for main taining employment, referred the dispute- for adjudication to one Shri J. N. Khanna, Regional Conciliation Officer, Kanpur. The reference was as under :- "whether the workers whose names appears at Appendix 'a' were unjustly and wrongfully dismissed by the management ? If so, to what relief are they entitled.

(2.) THIS order of the State of U. P. was challenged in this Court by the Management in Writ Petition No. 7944 of 1951. However, this Court dismissed the writ petition on 5-3-1954. Thereafter, Special Leave Petition was filed before Hon'ble Supreme Court which was also dismissed on 10-3-1958. The State of U. P. , however, vide order dated 30-12-1957 with drew its earlier order dated 23-10-1951 referring the dispute for adjudi cation. THIS order became final as the workmen did not challenge the same.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has sub mitted that it is a settled position of law that the State Government is not under obligation to give any opportunity of hearing to the employer before making a reference to an Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court and the order cannot be said to be illegal on this ground. It has been further submitted that the workmen were agitating about their grievances and they cannot be said to be at fault. The delay has been caused on account of the management. It has been further submitted that when the case of the employees was taken up by the three Labour Unions, the industrial dispute came in existence and the State Government has rightly referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal. There is no time limit prescri bed in law for making such a reference and the claim of the workmen could not be termed as stale in the facts and circumstances of the case. Both the learned counsel have relied on certain authorities which shall be referred to and discussed at the relevant time.