BARBIL WORKERS UNION Vs. UNION OF INDIA UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Barbil Workers Union has asked for a writ of certiorari to quash the order made by the Union of India under Section 10 (1) (d) read with Section 12 (5) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and for a writ of mandamus to dispose of the matter afresh. On 17-1-1971, the petitioner-union raised the following demands:

(2.) THE law applicable to a case of this type has been indicated succinctly in Bombay, Union of Journalists-State of Bombay [1964-1 L. L. J. 351]; A. I. R. 1964 S. C. 1917. The jurisdiction of this Court is not appellate and in an application of this type this Court has only to examine whether in reaching a prima facie conclusion about the referability of the dispute placed before Government, relevant considerations have been taken into account and reasons which are germane have been ascribed. It is not disputed that the failure report indicated the stand of the employees and the employer at considerable length. The Union Government on examination of the report and other materials placed before it came to the conclusion that the introduction of the insurance scheme did not appear to be justifiable. Dealing with the claim for railway fare it was also found that such a system was not prevalent in the area. It is well-settled that Government can take a broad view of matters to find out whether the claim leading to the dispute is such as is likely to disturb quiet industrial peace. The reasons given in regard to those two items seem to be based upon such consideration which we cannot rule out to be not germane to the matter.

(3.) COMING to the claim for gratuity scheme the position seems to be somewhat different. It is asserted and there is no material to deny that from February, 1970 the gratuity scheme as recommended by the Central Wage Board has been enforced as per settlement between M/s. Mining and Transporting Co. and M/s, Modern Construction who are its raising contractors. In the same area and in regard to the similar industries the gratuity scheme has been introduced. This also finds specific mention in paragraph 2 under the heading "union's view points" in the failure report. It is conceded that acceptance of the Central Wage Board's recommendation by the Government is not a condition precedent to its enforcement by consent or otherwise between the employers and the employees. A mutually agreed" settlement is not the only process by which the recommendations of the Central Wage Board can be enforced. If they are reasonable, it is open even to a Tribunal, while laying down fair conditions of service, to accept any part of it. The reasoning given so far as the claim for gratuity scheme is concerned does not. seem to be at ail germane and relevant. We would accordingly, while sustaining the Government order in regard to items 1 and 3 of the claim,, vacate that order in regard to item No. 2 dealing with gratuity scheme. That part of the dispute shall again be placed before the Government for consideration as to whether a reference need be made to the appropriate Tribunal. We would allow the writ application in part and quash the direction of the Union Government refusing to make a reference of the dispute relating to the gratuity scheme. The opposite party Government is Directed to reconsider the matter in accordance with law. We do not make any order for coils. B. K. Ray, J.