G CLARIDGE AND CO LTD Vs. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition filed by G. Claridge and Co. , Ltd. , Bombay for the issue of a writ of certiorari against the Industrial Tribunal appointed by the State of Bombay under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, XIV [14] of 1947, and against the State of Bombay and two employees of the petitioners who were impleaded on behalf of themselves and all other persona interested in deriving benefit under awards dated September 28, 1949, and September 29, 1950. made by the Industrial Tribunal. The petitioners have prayed that this Court do call for records and proceedings of the Industrial Tribunal and do quash the orders and awards dated September 28, 1949, and September 29, 1950, in so far as they relate to hours of work and 'payment for overtime. ' Relevant averments made in the petition may be shortly stated.

(2.) THE petitioners are a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1918, having their registered office in Bombay. The Government of Bombay by their order of reference dated June 11, 1918, made under Section 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred all disputes existing between ten newspapers and printing presses mentioned in the schedule to the order (including the petitioners), and their workmen, regarding the matters specified in annexure A to the order of reference to the adjudication of the Industrial Tribunal consisting of Mr. Salim M. Merchant. One of the matters referred to was demand No. 3 relating to "wages". On the reference coming on for hearing before the Industrial Tribunal, an award was made on September 28, 1949, which was published in the Bombay Government Gazette, Extraordinary on October 13, 1949. It was submitted that in adjudicating the dispute relating to the subject matter of the demand relating to wages, the Industrial Tribunal provided for a w ge scale and purported to declare that wage-scale on the basis of a 42 hours week, whereas the petitioners had always worked for 45 hours a week. It was submitted that there was no dispute between the petitioners and their workmen at any material time as to the number of hours of work, nor as to 'the payment for overtime', and no demand had been made by the petitioners or by their workmen relating to either of these matters. The Industrial Tribunal had by paragraph 24 of the award directed the petitioners to adjust payment of wages on the basis of a 42 hours week and payment for overtime work also on that basis. Inasmuch as no industrial dispute had been raised between the petitioners and their workmen with regard to the hours of work and with regard to payment for overtime' and that no reference had been made to the Industrial Tribunal in that behalf, the petitioners submitted that the award in so far as it dealt with the hours of work and with the 'payment for overtime' wag ultra vires. It was further stated that the Government of Bombay purporting to act under Rule 20a of the Industrial Disputes (Bombay) Rules, 1947, made a reference to the Industrial Tribunal for clarification of its award with regard to hours of work, and the Industrial Tribunal purporting to act in pursuance of that reference made a further order on September 29, 1950, providing for 'hours of work and 'payment for overtime. ' That direction dated September 29, 1950, was published by the Government of Bombay in a supplementary award in the Bombay Government Gazette Extraordinary on October 2. 1950. The petitioners submitted that the Industrial Tribunal became functus officio in the matter of the reference on the publication of the award on October 13, 1949, and the reference under Rule 20a to the Industrial Tribunal and the further direction of the Tribunal were ultra vires and were accordingly a nullity. Feeling aggrieved by the action of the Industrial Tribunal in dealing with the hours of work and with 'payment for overtime' and in passing orders and in issuing directions touching these matters, the petitioners filed this petition for the issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing the proceedings of the Industrial Tribunal in so far as they relate to hours of work and payment for overtime.

(3.) MR. G. V. Dave, Under-Secretary to the Government of Bombay, Labour and Housing Department, has filed an affidavit on behalf of the State of Bombay. He has contended inter alia that the issue referred to and decided by the Industrial Tribunal on September 29,1950, was a part of the very issue which the Tribunal had to enquire into, under the reference made by the Government of Bombay by order of reference dated June 11, 1948, under Section 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He has further submitted that, even assuming that there was no dispute relating to the hours of work and payment for overtime, the Tribunal was entitled to adjudicate, as it did, in order to make its decision effective, and the ancillary direction was essential to the rest of its award; and inasmuch as the petitioner declined to implement the award by carrying out the directions contained in the award, and inasmuch as the industrial dispute raised between the petitioners and their workmen regarding the date from which the directions contained in the award regarding the payment of revised wages and also for overtime work were to come into operation, the Government of Bombay under Rule 20a of the rules made under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, moved the Tribunal at the instance of the petitioners, seeking clarification of its award in regard to hours of work and payment for overtime, as agreed between the petitioners and their workmen; and that the order dated September 29, 1950, passed by the Industrial Tribunal in pursuance of the reference made to the Tribunal by the Government of Bombay was an order which the Industrial Tribunal had jurisdiction to make in respect of hours of work and payment for overtime. It was submitted that the original award and the subsequent educidation were within the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal, and the subsequent elucidation having been obtained from the Tribunal by the Government of Bombay at the express desire of the petitioners and their workmen, it was binding upon the petitioners.