37 and 38 of 1957.
After holding a preliminary discussion with the parties the companyciliation officer examined the four demands made by the respondents and admitted into companyciliation only two of them they were in respect of the classification of certain employees and the bonus for the year 1952 53 the two remaining demands were number admitted in companyciliation.
The respondents union also addressed the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Bombay, forwarding to him a companyy of the said demands, and intimating to him that since the companypany had number recognised the respondents union there was numberhope of any direct negotiations between the union and the companypany.
It appears that the respondents addressed four demands to the companypany they were in respect of gratuity, holidays, classification of certain employees and for the payment of an unconditional bonus for the financial year ended October 31, 1953.
226 of the Constitution praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or other writ, direction or order against the State of Maharashtra hereafter called the appellant calling upon it to refer the said dispute for industrial adjudication under s. 10 1 and s. 12 5 of the Act.
The respondents then informed the companypany that they were entitled to a much higher bonus having regard to the profits made by the companypany during the relevant year and that they had decided to accept the bonus offered by the companypany without prejudice to the demand already submitted by them in that behalf.
On February 18, 1955, the respondents filed in the Bombay High Court a petition under Art.
Soon thereafter the companypany declared a bonus equivalent to 1/4 of the basic earnings for the year 1952 53.
The Assistant Commissioner of Labour, who is also the companyciliation officer, was therefore requested to companymence the companyciliation proceedings at an early date.
In regard to the respondents claim for bonus the companyciliator made certain suggestions to the companypany but the companypany did number accept them, and so it became clear that there was numberpossibility of reaching a settlement on that issue.
Against this decision the appellant as well as the companypany preferred appeals.
This petition was heard by Tendolkar J. He held that s. 12 5 in substance imposed an obligation on the appellant to refer the dispute provided it was satisfied that a case for reference had been made, and he came to the companyclusion that the reason given by the appellant for refusing to make a reference was so extraneous that the respondents were entitled to a writ of mandamus against the appellant.
Accordingly he directed that a mandamus shall issue against the appellant to reconsider the question of making or refusing to make a reference under s. 12 5 ignoring the fact that there was a slow down and taking into account only such reasons as are germane to the question of determining whether a reference should or should number be made.
To this application the companypany was also impleaded as an opponent.
These appeals have been ordered to be companysolidated and have been heard together, and both of them raise the question about the companystruction of s. 12 5 of the Act.
The appellant and the companypany then applied for and obtained a certificate from the High Court and with that certificate they have companye to this Court by their two appeals Nos.
