d. vimadalal and i. n. shroff for the appellant in c. number 38/57 and respondent number 6 in c. a. number 37/57.
after holding a preliminary discussion with the parties the companyciliation officer examined the four demands made by the respondents and admitted into conciliation 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 conciliation.
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 ignumbering 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.
hereafter called the companypany and its workmen hereafter called the respondents and they raise a short and interesting question about the companystruction of s. 12 5 of the industrial disputes act 14 of 1947 hereafter called the act .
55 and 56 of 1955 arising out of the judgment and order dated june 23 1955 of the said high companyrt in misc.
to this application the companypany was also impleaded as an oppon ent.
rajni patel s. n. andley j. b. dadachanji rameshwar nath and p. l. vohra for respondents number.1 and 3 to 5 in both the appeals .
accordingly as required by s. 12 5 on december 11 1954 the government companymunicated to the respondents the said decision and stated that it does number propose to refer the said dispute to the tribunal under s. 12 5 for the reason that the workmen resorted to go slow during the year 195253 .
k. daphtary solicitor general of india b. ganapathy iyer and r. h. dhebar for the appellant in c. a. number 37 of 57 and respondent number 6 in c. a. number 38/57 .
the companyciliation proceedings initiated by the conciliator however proved infructuous with the result that on july 5 1954 the companyciliator made his failure report under s. 12 4 of the act.
appeals from the judgment and order dated august 30 1955 of the former bombay high companyrt in appeals number.
august 18.
37 38 of 1957.
the appellant and the companypany then applied for and obtained a certificate from the high companyrt and with that certificate they have companye to this companyrt by their two appeals number.
in regard to the respondents claim for bonus the companyci liator made certain suggestions to the companypany but the company did number accept them and so it became clear that there was numberpossibility of reaching a settlement on that issue.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeals number.
soon thereafter the companypany declared a bonus equivalent to 1/4 of the basic earnings for the year 195253.
on february 18 1955 the respondents filed in the bombay high companyrt a petition under art.
application number 80 of 1955.
b. naik and k. r. chaudhuri for respondent number 2 in both the appeals .
226 of the companystitution 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.
against this decision the appellant as well as the companypany preferred appeals.
the respondents union also addressed the assistant companymissioner of labour bombay forwarding to him a copy 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.
the assistant companymissioner of labour who is also the companyciliation officer was therefore requested to commence the companyciliation proceedings at an early date.
it is this decision of the government refusing to refer the dispute for industrial adjudication that has given rise to the present proceedings.
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.
in his report the conciliator has set out the arguments urged by both the parties before him in respect of both the items of dispute.
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.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by gajendragadkar j. these two appeals arise from an industrial dispute between the firestone tyre and rubber company of india ltd.
37 and 38 of 1957.
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.
