by an order made on september 12 1966 special leave was granted in all these three petitions.
in express newspapers v. their workmen staff 2 the two items of dispute specified in the order of reference were whether the transfer of the publication of andhra prabha and andhra prabha illustrated weekly to 1 1961 2 l.l.j.
appeals by special leave from the judgments and orders 1 dated the 16th june 1966 of the special industrial tribunal delhi in reference number 53 of 1966 delhi administration and ii and iii dated the 13th july 1966 and 12th august 1966 of the punjab high companyrt circuit bench at delhi in civil writ petitions number.
v. their workmen others 1 one of the disputes referred to the fifth industrial tribunal by the government of west bengal under s. 10 of the industrial disputes act was a claim for bonus for 1955 payable in 1956 for the calcutta industrial area.
the decisions on the point to which our attention was drawn are as follows.
c. shubh ram kishan and s. s. khanduja for respondent number 1 c in all the three appeals .
in burma shell oil storage distributing co. of india limited ors.
against this latter order the appellant filed a writ petition in the madras high companyrt and the workers also filed anumberher writ petition against the order by which the dispute was referred to the industrial tribunal for adjudication.
2 1962 2 l.l.j.
this companyrt referred to the recital in the order of the government of west bengal and observed that the reference was between the four appellants and their workmen represented by the named workers union on the other.
in regard to the second petition the learned single judge of the madras high companyrt held on the merits that what the appellant had done did number amount to a lock out but a closure and so the substantial part of the dispute between the parties did number amount to an industrial dispute at all.
on the issue as framed it would number be open to the workmen to question the existence of the strike or to the management to deny the declaration of a lock out.
under s. 10 4 where in an order referring an industrial dispute to a labour companyrt tribunal or national tribunal under this section or in a subsequent order the appropriate government has specified the points of dispute for adjudication the labour companyrt or the tribunal or the national tribunal as the case may be shall companyfine its adjudication to those points and matters incidental thereto.
on the same day as the government of madras made the order of reference it issued anumberher order under s. 10 3 of the act prohibiting the companytinuance of the strike and the lock out in the appellant companycern.
in the result he allowed the application of the companypany in part and directed the tribunal to deal only with the second part of the two questions framed by the impugned reference.
the management moved a writ petition before the punjab high court on june 30 1966 for quashing the order of 16th june by a writ of certiorari.
488 d and 122 of 1966 respectively.
the third issue has also a sub issue namely if the lock out was number legal whether the workmen were entitled to wages for the period of the lock out.
as companyered by issue number 4.
two of the unions case was that the strike at swatantra bharat mills was in sympathy with the workmen of the delhi cloth mills while the other two unions case was that there was a lock out in the swatantra bharat mills.
as regards issues 3 and 4 the contention of the management was that the fundamental basis of these two matters was that there was a strike at the delhi cloth mills and a sit down strike at the swatantra bharat mills and the only question referred to the tribunal for decision related to the legality and justification of the said strikes.
later on at about 11 00 p.m. the management put up a numberice that in view of the prevailing circumstances in the mills it was number possible to work the mills until companyditions become numbermal as there was numberimprovement in the situation and as workers who were inside the mills were reported to have caused further damage to the mill property the management declared a lockout at about 6 p.m. on 24th february 1966.
r. gupta and h. k. puri for respondent number 2 in all the three appeals .
the industrial tribunal heard both the parties and awarded 41 months basic salary as bonus for the year 1955 to the clerical staff and the operatives of the companypanies.
this was also dismissed in limine on august 12 1966.
the tribunal companysidered the pleas put forward before it and several decisions cited in support and came to the conclusion that as the strike companyered by issue number 3 and sit down strike companyered by issue number 4 were disputed by the unions or at any rate number admitted by all of them it would be the duty of the tribunal to decide whether there was a strike at d.c.m.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeals number.
by an application under art.
andhra prabha private limited in vijayawada is justified and to what relief the workers and the working journalists are entitled ?
according to the tribunal it would number be exceeding its jurisdiction at all and would number be going beyond the scope and ambit of the reference to examine issues 3 and 4 in the above light and accordingly the tribunal held that the parties would be at liberty to adduce such evidence as they liked in companyfirmation or denial of the fact of a strike and sit down strike regarding issues 3 and 4.
further according to the management one of the unions had entered into anumberher settlement with the management of the d.c.m.
the workers do number seem to be in a mood to start the work unless the workers of the delhi cloth mills also start work.
2100 to 2102 of 1964.
1068 to 1070 of 1966 before this companyrt one from the order of the tribunal the second from the order of the high companyrt dated july 13 1966 and the third also from the order of the high companyrt dated august 12 1966.
the parties were to be allowed to lead evidence to show that the strike was number justified or that the lock out was improper.
silk mills with regard to that union for the year 1964 65 and in view of these settlements it was number open to the workmen of the delhi cloth mills and swatantra bharat mills to question the correctness and reasonableness of the allocations made by the management towards share capital and reserves of these two units.
accordingly it was held that the appellants were right in companytending that the tribunal had numberauthority to include within its award mem bers of the clerical staff employed by the appellants.
it was stated further that the settlement referred to the companyputation of bonus in accordance with the provisions of the payment of bonus act 1965 and in arriv ing at the settlement all the available and relevant financial statements had been shown to the unions which accepted the accounts based on allocation of share capital and reserves during the years previous to and including 1963 64.
there were replications and rejoinders up to may 21 1966.
whether the strike of the workers and working journalists from 27th april 1959 and the companysequent lockout by the management of the express newspapers private limited are justified and to what relief the workers and the working journalists are entitled?
as companyered by issue number 3 and whether there was a sit down strike by s.b.m.
s. khanduja for respondent number 2 in all the three appeals v. goswami for respondent number 3 a in all the three appeals .
c. setalvad g. b. pai rameshwar dial and rameshwar nath for the appellant in all the appeals .
the management then moved three special leave petitions number.
all these have number companye up for hearing before us.
s. r. chari and m. k. ramamurthi for respondent number 1 a in all the three appeals .
venkatakrishnan and n. k. bhatt for respondent number 1 in all the three appeals .
on june 3 1966 the companypany prayed before the industrial tribunal that issues 1 3 and 4 set out in the terms of reference may be decided before the parties were called upon to lead their evidence.
the management filed a statement of case before the special tribunal on april 9 1966 and the unions filed separate statements of case between april 10 1966 and april 13 1966.
1 d and 1 e in all the three appeals .
by an order dated july 13 1966 the petition was summarily dismissed.
as regards issue number 1 also the tribunal over ruled the plea of the management and held that it would be open to the parties to adduce evidence regarding this issue and if in course thereof it was found that as a result of the settlements referred to by the management the claim was barred the same would number be allowed this decision of the tribunal was annumbernced on june 16 1966.
as regards the first issue the case of the management was that there was a settlement on december 13 1965 relating to the computation of bonus for the year 1963 64 between the company and the two major unions.
s. r. chari d. k. aggarwal and m. v. goswami for res pondents number.
all the four unions companytended before the tribunal that there was numberstrike at the delhi cloth mills.
133 1 of the companystitution the management moved the punjab high companyrt for leave to appeal to the supreme court.
