KRISHNAN K P Vs. STATE OF BOMBAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition by the employees of Firestone Tyre and Rubber Company of India, Ltd. for the issue of a writ of mandamus calling upon the State of Bombay, who are the first respondent, to refer a certain dispute to adjudication. The second respondents are the company.

(2.) THE matter arises in this way. The petitioners are some of the employees of the company and are members of the employees' union, a trade union registered under the Indian Trade Union Act. On 17 November 1953 the union sent a letter to the company putting forward certain demands relating to gratuity, paid holidays, classification of certain employees and bonus for the year November 1952 to October 1953. A copy of the said letter was also sent to the Commissioner of Labour with a request that he should intervene in the matter. The company did not send any reply to the said letter and thereupon the union wrote to the Assistant Commissioner of Labour to commence conciliation proceedings in the matter of the said industrial disputes. After this letter was sent on 2 December 1953 the company on 6 December 1953 declared a bonus for the year November 1952 to October 1953 equivalent to one-fourth of the basic earnings. The union did not accept this bonus as adequate and on 12 December 1953 the union addressed a letter to the company making an amendment in the original demand for bonus. Conciliation proceedings were started on 29 April 1953 relating to bonus for the year 1952-53 and the classification of certain employees; but these proceedings were in fructuous and the conciliation officer on 5 July 1954 made his report to the Government under Section 12 (4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. This report shall be referred to as the "failure report. " Upon receipt of the report it was the duty of the Government under Section 12 (5)to consider whether a reference should be made, and in this connexion the petitioners say that their representatives saw the Hon'ble Labour Minister at Bombay and requested him to refer the said dispute to the industrial tribunal for adjudication, but the said Hon'ble Minister reprimanded the employees' representatives for the employees having adopted go-slow tactics during the year 1952-53 for which the bonus was asked for. . . . Ultimately by the letter of the Under Secretary of the Government of Bombay, Development Department, dated 11 December 1954, the general secretary of the union was informed that the Government did not propose to refer the said dispute to a tribunal under Section 12 (5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The reason assigned in the said letter for not referring the said dispute to a tribunal is "that the workmen resorted to go-slow during the year 1952-53. " It is the case of the petitioners that in refusing to refer the said dispute to a tribunal the Government has relied upon a matter which is entirely extraneous to the question of making or not making a reference, and in doing so the Government has failed to apply its mind to the question of whether a reference should or should not be made as they were bound to do under Section 12, Sub-section (5 ).

(3.) THE short question, therefore, that arises for determination is whether the order of the Government refusing to make a reference can successfully be challenged in these proceedings, and whether the Government ought to be required by a mandamus to make a reference.