ENGINEERING MAZDOOR SABHA Vs. ANEY D M

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Engineering Mazdoor Sabha, the petitioners, have approached this Court under Art. 227 of the Constitution to set said an order dated 31 August 1965 made by Sri D. M. Aney, the industrial tribunal, Maharashtra, respondent 1, rejecting the petitioners' application to give them a hearing in Reference (I.T.) No. 93 of 1965 and for an appropriate writ, direction or order directing respondent 1 to give the petitioners an opportunity of being heard in the said reference before an award is made and published.

(2.) The circumstances which have made it necessary for the petitioners to approach this Court are that by an order dated 15 March 1965 made under S. 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Government of Maharashtra referred an industrial dispute between Hind Cycles, Ltd., respondent 2, and their workmen relating to payment of bonus for the years 1961-62 and 1962-63 for adjudication to the industrial tribunal consisting of Sri M. R. Meher. According to the petitioners, they represented a large majority of the workmen of respondent 2 in the matter of the said reference. On 14 May 1965 the petitioners filed their statements of claim, to which a written statement was filed by respondent 2. A contention was raised on behalf of respondent 2 that the said order of reference made by the Government of Maharashtra was invalid. As Sri Meher was of the opinion that the question of validity of the said order of reference could not properly be decided in the absence of the State Government, he directed notice to issue to the Government Pleader, and the State of Maharashtra was also added as a party to the said reference. Meanwhile the period of appointment of Sri Meher expired on 30 December 1965, and accordingly, in exercise of the powers conferred upon the State Government by S. 33B(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act the said reference which was pending before him was withdrawn by the Government of Maharashtra and transferred for disposal to the industrial tribunal consisting of Sri K. P. Powar. The said order was published in Part I of the Maharashtra Government Gazette of 13 January 1966. Before Sri Powar the reference was adjourned from time to time as it was mentioned to him that a similar question was pending for decision before the Supreme Court. When the matter reached on 25 July 1966 Sri Powar told the parties in open Court that a new industrial tribunal was likely to be appointed and that when such new tribunal was appointed the said reference might be transferred to the new tribunal for adjudication. He thereupon adjourned the hearing of the reference to 29 August 1966 to be before him. At the several hearings before Sri Meher and Sri Powar the petitioners appeared representing the majority of the workmen of respondent 2 who were their members, while the other workmen appeared through the General and Engineering Employees' Union, respondent 3.

(3.) By notification dated 16 August 1966, published in Part XL of the Maharashtra Government Gazette dated 25 August 1965, the Government of Maharashtra appointed respondent 1 as an industrial tribunal. According to the petitioners, no order transferring the said reference to respondent 1 was communicated to the petitioners nor was any such order published in the gazette. The petitioners, accordingly, remained under the impression that Sri Powar continued to be seized of the said reference.