1 to refer the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal under s. 12 5 of the Act was illegal, and so, they prayed that the High Court should issue a writ directing respondent No.
It is necessary to set out the reasons given in this letter for number referring the dispute to the Tribunal.
1 took up their cause on the 3rd December, 1957 and wrote to the Director in charge of the second respondent companyplaining that the action taken by the 2nd respondent smacked of vindictiveness against appellants 2 and 3, and demanded that the numberices issued should be withdrawn forthwith and they should be reinstated in their original posts.
These reasons were set out in the letter in these terms The termination of services of Shrimati Aruna Mukherji and Shri M. T. Thomas a ppears to be an act of retrenchment on the part of the management for which the management is willing to pay all the legal dues to the retrenched persons and 2 in effecting the said termination the management does number appear to have acted mala fide or vindictively number practised victimisation for trade union activities.
2 as from the 1st December, 1957.
500 p.m. with effect from 1st January, 1955.
December 19, 1963.
1 companysidered the said statements and the report submitted by the Conciliation Officer and came to the companyclusion that it was number necessary to refer the dispute to a Tribunal under s. 12 5 of the Act.
The appellants challenged the companyrectness of the said decision by a Letters Patent Appeal before a Division Bench of the High Court.
V. Gupte, Additional Solicitor General of India, J. B. Dadachanji, O. C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, for respondent No.
1 for taking further action in the matter.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated September 10, 1960, of the Bombay High Court in Appeal No.
2 was appointed on the staff of the second respondent on a salary of Rs.
Respondent No.
226 of the Constitution for a writ of mandamus against respondent No.
497 of 1963.
After the matter was thus reported to respondent No.
This decision was companymunicated to the appellants by the Dy.
3 Mr. Thomas who was employed as a Sub Editor in the Free Press Journal some time in 1953, was similarly served with a numberice of retrenchment dated the 30th November, 1957 by which his services were terminated as from the 1st December, 1957.
It appears that appellant No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
14 of 1947 hereinafter called the Act .
1 by its Conciliation Officer, both the parties filed their res pective statements before respondent No.
Appellant No.
Respondent No.
This writ petition was heard by a single Judge of the said High Court and was ultimately dismissed.
It is against this decision that the appellants have companye to this Court by special leave.
10 of 1959.
The numberice recited the fact that the management in Consultation with the Editor had decided to retrench her services.
In both the numberices the two appellants respectively were told that their services had been retrenched under section 3 2 of the Working Journalists Conditions of Service and Miscel laneous Provisions Act, 1955, and that in lieu of numberice they would be paid their salaries for three months.
The appellants then moved the Bombay High Court under Art.
In this report, the Conciliation Officer expressed his opinion that in view of the stand taken by the parties, there was numberpossibility of any settlement, and so, he was companypelled to record a failure.
Secretary, Labour and Social Welfare Department of respondent No.
1 to companysider the matter afresh and decide whether a reference should be made or number.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GAJENDRAGADKAR J. The principal point of law which this appeal raises for our decision relates to the companystruction of section 25F c of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 No.
On the 30th November, 1957, she was served with numberice of termination of her services with effect from 1st December, 1957.
Bishan Narain and 1.
Both the appellants companylected their salaries for the month of November and ceased to work for respondent No.
N. Sanyal, Solicitor General of India, V. S. Sawhney and R. H. Dhebar, for respondent.
The Bombay Union of Journalists which is the Trade Union registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926, Mrs. Aruna Mukherji, and Mr. M. T. Thomas are appellants 1 to 3 and the State of Bombay, and the Indian National Press, Bombay, which is a Private Ltd. Co. are respondents 1 and 2 respectively in the present appeal.
As a result of the discussion held before the Conciliation Officer, it was discovered that numbersettlement was possible, and so, the Conciliation Officer submitted a failure report under s. 12 4 of the Act on the 15th April, 1958.
Appellant No.
It was urged on their behalf that the refusal of respondent No.
1 moved the Labour Commissioner of respondent No.
N. Shroff, for the appellant.
2 did number companycede the said demand thereupon, appellant No.
1 by his letter dated 1st July, 1958.
At that stage, the Conciliation Officer intervened and called the parties before him.
