ABDUL REHAMAN ABDUL GAFUR Vs. E PAUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution whereby the Petitioners claim a writ of mandamus and/or directions that the 1st Respondent, being the Conciliation Officer appointed by the State of Maharashtra; (the 2nd Respondent) do forbear and/or abstain from proceeding with the conciliation of industrial disputes between the Mazagaon Dock Limited being the 4th Respondent and its workmen regarding increase in wages, dearness allowance, leave paid holidays, etc.

(2.) The only contention which has been advanced before me in support of this petition is that the Mazagaon Dock Limited, the 4th Respondent, is an industry "carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government" and that accordingly the appropriate Conciliation Officers to consider any industrial disputes arising between the Mazagaon Dock Limited and its workmen are the Conciliation Officers appointed by the Central Government. For this reason it is argued that the 1st Respondent being the Conciliation Officer appointed by the State of Maharashtra, has no jurisdiction to act as Conciliation Officer in respect of disputes which have arisen between the Mazagaon Dock Limited and its workmen.

(3.) The above question has arisen under the fallowing circumstances: On 26th February 1934 Mazagaon Dock Limited was incorporated as a public limited company under the Indian Companies Act. As from December 10, 1957, the Mazagaon Dock Limited was converted into a private limited company. From 1957 the whole of the share capital of the Mazagaon Dock Limited [hereinafter referred to as 'the Company') was owned by two Commercial corporations of the names of P. and 0. Orient Lines and British India Steam Navigation Company. In or about May 1960 me Union of India and/or the Central Government purchased the whole of the share capital of the Company from the above two corporations and owns the whole of the share capital of the Company. As a result of the Union of India purchasing the whole share capital, Articles of Association of the Company were altered in a large way and I will refer to some of the Articles when necessary. In November 1960 a union of workers of the name of "Association of Engineering Workers" on behalf of the workmen of the Company made certain demands and the demands were taken into conciliation proceedings by the 1st Respondent -- the Conciliation Officer appointed by the State of Maharashtra in February 1961. A further demand for payment of bonus was made subsequently and that demand was also admitted to conciliation proceedings on June 2, 1961. In pursuance of the directions of the 1st Respondent, a notice was put up by the Company for the information of the workmen that the demands made as aforesaid (being the two disputes) had been admitted Into conciliation proceedings. The 2nd Petitioner is another union which also claims membership of the workmen of the Company. The 1st Petitioner is a workman of the Company. The Petitioners have made a contention as I have already mentioned above and argue that since the 1st Respondent cannot have jurisdiction, the mandamus and direction as claimed in the petition ought to be issued.