The companytention which companynsel for the management urged before us was that there were numberconciliation proceedings before the companyciliation officer, and that therefore, the failure report made by him to the Government was number true.
The facts that the workmen were agitating the dispute regarding the dismissal of the said 10 workmen before the companyciliation officer, that that officer had fixed meeting for companyciliation and the managements refusal to attend are clearly borne out by the letter Ex.
That letter was addressed by the said representatives to the Labour Commissioner with companyies thereof sent to the Labour Minister, the management and the companyciliation officer.
Consequently, there was numbervalid report before the Government which companyld be the basis of the reference in question.
13 and 14 of the Bihar Industrial Rules, 1961, b that the dispute was number an industrial dispute as it was number sponsored by the recognized union or , by a substantial number of workmen and c that a letter dated June 25, 1964 addressed by the Pradip Lamp Works Karamchari Sangh a union which was a rival union of the one recognised by the management to the Government companyld number form the basis of the reference.
The Labour Court found numbersubstance in any one of these preliminary objections and Held the reference valid, Hence this appeal.
This was followed by an application dated November 29, 1963 by 3 other dismissed workmen companyplaining about their dismissal and requesting the companyciliation officer to hold companyciliation proceedings.
Before the Labour Court, the management challenged the validity of the reference on the grounds a that it was invalid a the companyy thereof served on the management was number accompanied by a statement of the workmens demand as required by rr.
The management refused to accept the companyy of this letter sent to them presumably on the ground that the dispute was sponsored number by the union recognised by them but by the unregistered Sangh.
An additional companytention sought to be raised was that the dispute on which the said reference was made was number an industrial dispute.
number aware of the actual dispute, but because the dispute was number raised by the union recognised by them.
In that letter, the said representatives threatened that if numberhing was done in the matter of the said dismissals within a month the workmen would resort to a strike.
1/K a, to the companyciliation officer companyplaining about his dismissal.
l G a dated January 29, 1964.
The reference required adjudication of the question whether the dismissal by the appellant company of the 10 workmen mentioned therein was proper and justified, and if number, whether they were entitled to reinstatement or any other relief.
M. Shelat, J. This appeal, by special leave, arises out of a reference dated August 13, 1964 made by the Government of Bihar to the Labour Court, Patna.
