STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. ANANTHA KRISHNAN (K.)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 21 May 1958, the workers employed by respondent 2, the Associated Cement Companies, Ltd., hereinafter referred to as the company, presented a charter of demands to. the company. The demands were made on behalf of the workers by the secretary of the union, respondent 1. On 23 May 1959, five out of the twenty -six demands were referred to the industrial tribunal consisting of Sri M.R. Meher, under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. One of the demands, which had been made, was for a reduction in working hours. The demand, which had been made, was as follows: Office time or working hours,Working hours shall be from 10 -30 a.m. to 5 -30 p.m. on week days with one hour recess and on Saturdays, the working hours shall be from 10 -30 a.m. to 1 -30 p.m.

(2.) THIS demand was not referred to the industrial tribunal. On 23 June 1959, a letter was addressed by Government to the general secretary of the union, in which the reasons for refusing to refer this demand to the industrial tribunal were given as follows: Hours of work.It is for the management to fix the working hours within the limits laid down in the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act. A similar demand was rejected by the tribunal earlier.

(3.) THE learned Advocate -General, who has appeared on behalf of the State, has raised two main points. He has first urged that the decision of the Supreme Court in the State of Bihar v. D.N. Ganguly and Ors. : (1958)IILLJ634SC (supra) is per in curia and that consequently it is not binding on Government. He has also urged that the Supreme Court's decision does not apply to the facts of the present case. In the case, which was before the Supreme Court, Government had subsequently changed its original decision and cancelled the reference made by it. That is not the position here. In the present case, according to the Advocate -General, the first order of 12 December 1959 WSB made through a mistake and consequently Government had power to rectify it. He has drawn our attention to cases, in which it has been laid down that Government is not bound by the mistaken act of its officers.