MODERN SUITING SHRAMIK SANGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner seeks to quash the order dated January 8, 1989 of the Sate of Rajasthan, declining to refer the dispute for adjudication under Section 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the Act of 1947 ).

(2.) THE grievance of the petitioner is that the State of Rajasthan vide order dated February 16, 1987 directed all the Textile Mills (Kapada Mills) of Rajasthan to pay interim increment of Rs. 7. 50 per labour per month with effect from January 1, 1987. At the same time the workmen were bound not to go on strike in relation to demand about benefit of increment in the existing pay scales. An award was also passed by the Arbitrator (District Collector, Alwar) regarding some disputes between Management and the Workmen on September 27, 1987. The Management of respondent No. 2 while accepting the award took the plea that the order dated February 16, 1987 under Section 10-K of the Act of 1947 is not applicable upon the workmen for the reason that respondent No. 2 does not come in the category of textile mill. This dispute ought to have been referred for adjudication but the respondent No. 1 refused to refer it holding that order dated February 16, 1987 was not applicable to the workmen of the petitioner.

(3.) THE contention of respondent No. 2 on the other hand is that award dated September 27, 1987 followed by settlement dated September 28, 1987 makes it abundantly clear that the terms and conditions settled therein were in supersession of all previous terms and conditions. Therefore the order dated February 16, 1987 becomes totally irrelevant insofar as respondent No. 2 is concerned. Court of Enquiry also gave a report on July 15, 1987 observing that demand in question did not pertain to respondent No. 2 which was a suiting/processing Mill. The State Government being the author of the order dated February 16, 1987 was the best judge to decide the question as to what was the purport content, intent, ambit and scope of the order dated February 16, 1987 and whether it was applicable to the respondent No. 2 or not.