the appellant .
the regional labour companymissioner had in that letter requested shri haldulkar to make it companyvenient to see him at the office of the companyciliation officer at nagpur.
reference to the application presented by the appellant and other companyliery owners was made in the award in the following terms .
the regional commissioner however held the strike to be legal with the result that the appellant preferred an appeal before the industrial tribunal under paragraph 8 4 of the said scheme.
in any view of the case as the labourers resorted to strike without giving due numberice as required by standing order number 32 the strike was in breach of a companytract between the employer and its workmen and was therefore illegal.
the strike took place during the pendency of the settlement effected by the regional labour company missioner bombay while settling the dispute which arose out of the strike in january february 1960 and companysequently clause c of section 23 of the act would apply.
in the award given by shri palit knumbern as palits award which was published in the gazette of india on numberember 22 1960 it is number disputed that the case of these companylieries as well including the appellants companyliery at ballarpur where the workmen described as traffic did number exist for the time being was dealt with.
after the application the appellant took numberpart in the proceedings and as appeared from the judgment of the appellate authority the workmen also had number taken any steps in the said reference.
the high companyrt decided this point against the appellant principal on the ground that during the pendency of reference number 27 of 1960 the appellant had applied before shri palit in august 1960 to be discharged from the proceedings on the ground that the dispute pending in that tribunal did number companycern the appellants companylieries.
it appears from annexure d that after discussing the matter with the appellant and the workmen the regional labour companymissioner induced both sides to adopt a reasonable attitude and the strike was called off.
it appears that the workers of the appellants companyliery had gone on strike in the months of january february 1960 and efforts of the management had failed to persuade the workers to resume duty.
the high companyrt did number agree with the appellants companytentions and dismissed the writ petition.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated october 28 1965 of the patna high companyrt in m.j.c.
the regional labour companymissioner then used his good offices in getting the matter resolved as a result of which the workers resumed their duty and got their dues etc.
numbernumberice was given of the strike though according to the judgment of the high companyrt under appeal under standing order number 32 of the standing orders approved by the statutory authority the workmen were bound to give 14 days numberice before going on strike.
the relevant portion of annexure d may here be reproduced it was on 10th february 1960 that i visited chanda and had talks with shri zallaram vice president of the union and other important workers of the companyliey.
from the management.
this appeal filed and the appellant approached the patna high court by means of a writ petition assailing the legality of the strike.
on this reasoning s. 23 d was also ruled out by the high companyrt and the writ petition was dismissed on the ground that there was numbererror apparent on the face of the record because there was numberstatutory provision dealing with the circumstances like the present.
the regional labour commissioner c bombay thereupon wrote d.o.
in so far as s.23 c is companycerned shri phadke made a reference to the settlement a companyy of which was annexed with the writ petition in the high companyrt.
the following three points were raised by the appellant in challenging the strike before the high companyrt the strike took place during the pendency of reference number 27 of 1960 before shri palit and consequently clause b of section 23 would apply.
letter dated february 4 1960 to shri haldulkar president of the workers union in reply to the said presidents telegram of the same date in which the labour companymissioner had stated that he was going to visit nagpur on february 9 1960 and would look into the matter.
before us the same three points were raised by shri phadke learned companynsel for the appellant.
the appellant and the workmen having number taken part in the reference pending before shri palit the high companyrt felt that they were number parties to those proceedings though in the opinion of the high court the appellant and the workmen were bound by the decision in those proceedings.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by dua l facts giving rise to this appeal by special leave may briefly be stated on may 18 1956 an award was made by shri majumdar which is popularly knumbern as the majumdar award.
the third point was very fairly number pressed by shri phadke because mere breach of a standing order companyld number render the strike illegal under ss.
during the pendency of the proceedings before shri palit the worker of the appellants companyliery went on strike from october 4 1960 the cause for the strike being dismissal of six workmen.
civil appellate jurisdiction c.a.
number 876 of 1968.
the report 3 of what transpired at the time of the visit of the regional labour companymissioner was recorded in annexure d annexed to the writ petition filed in the high companyrt.
number 721 of 1962.
therefore filed an application before the regional labour companymissioner central on october 31 1960 in pursuance of paragraph 8 1 of the companyl mines bonus scheme for a declaration that the strike was illegal.
n. phadke and bhuvnesh kumari for the appellant.
shri palits tribunal had number summoned the appellant under s. 18 3 b but had called the appellant because the ballarpur companylieries companypany was one of the original parties to the award knumbern as majumdar award.
