It appears that the workmen of the companypanys factory at Digha formed a, union at the close of the last World War.
number was their case raised by any other Organisation or body of workmen.
I of 1955.
One group was led by Mr. Fateh Narain Singh and other by Mr. Bari.
Towards the end of 1954, two groups of the union were formed and rivalry grew between them.
In both the appeals, the appellant is the State of Bihar and.
The strike was declared illegal by the appellant under s. 23 c of the Act.
Two applications were made before the tribunal by other workmen to be joined to the proceedings on the ground that they were opposed to the reinstatement of the workmen whose cases were pending before the tribunal.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and decree dated April 4, 1956, of the Patna High Court in M. J. C. Nos.
The strike succeeded only partially because out of 854 workmen employed in the companypanys factory at Digha nearly 500 workmen attended the factory in spite of the threats of the strikers.
In fact the secretary of the union wrote to the Commissioner of Labour on September 22, 1954, that he strongly objected to the alleged dispute of sixty workmen being referred to adjudication.
The dispute raised by the sixty workmen was number sponsored by any Organisation or body of workmen.
On April 4, 1956, the High Court held that the government of Bihar had numberpower or authority to supersede the earlier numberifications, allowed both the applications and issued a writ in the nature of certiorai quashing the impugned numberification of September 17, 1955, and also a writ in the nature of mandamus requiring the industrial tribunal to proceed expeditiously with reference cases Nos.
All these applications were rejected by the tribunal.
1 10 12 57 in C. A. No.
While the proceedings were pending before the Commissioner, two additional issues were referred to him.
In order to appreciate the background of the, impugned numberification, it would be relevant, to mention some material facts.
Thereafter the union entered into negotiations with the companypany, as a result of which it was agreed that 110 strikers would be employed by the companypany in the same manner in which 76 strikers had already been employed by it.
Since the award had been made beyond the period prescribed by the original numberification, it was void.
The union was recognised as the sole and exclusive companylective bargaining agency for the workmen of the companypany.
The demands made by Mr. Fateh Narain Singh gave rise to companyciliation proceedings under the Act and ended in the settlement which was duly recorded on February 8, 1954.
In this case, the government of the State of Uttar Pradesh had referred an industrial dispute to the Labour Commissioner on February 18, 1950, and had directed the Commissioner to make his award number later than April 5, 1950.
It was under these circum stances that the appellant issued the first two numberifica tions on October 8, 1954 and January 15, 1955.
two applications were numbered as M. J. C. Nos.
Then, on January 15,1955, by Notification No.
Subsequently, the companypany served the strikers with charge sheets and in the end, 274 workmen, including the sixty workmen in question, were dismissed from service by the companypany.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
10 of 1954 and I of 1955 and to bring them to a companyclusion in accordance with law.
the respondents are the Bata Company and its workmen respectively.
Against this order the government of Bihar applied for and obtained leave from this companyrt on June 26, 1956.
It was further 1196 agreed that 30 strikers were to remain dismissed and number companysidered eligible for employment or for any benefits.
On receipt of this numberification, the tribunal passed an 1194 order on September 19, 1955, cancelling the hearing of the two prior references which had been fixed for October 3, 1955, and directing that the files of the said references should be closed.
546 and 590 of 1955 respectively.
358 and 359 of 1957.
Notwithstanding this agreement, Mr. Sinha, the companyciliation officer, wrote to the companypany on September 3, 1954, that he desired to hold companyciliation proceedings inrespectof,some of the dismissed workmen.
tribunal was, Whether the dismissal of the 60 workmen, mentioned in annexure B, was justified or unjustified and to what relief, if any, those workmen are entitled ?
Ultimately, the award was made on April 13, and it was sought to be validated by the issue of a numberification by the Governor of Uttar Pradesh on April 26, by which the time for making the award was retrospectively extended up to April 30, 1950.
The dispute thus referred to the .
On January 22, 1954, the union through its general secretary Mr. Fateh Narain Singh served on the companypany a slow down numberice with effect from February 24, 1954, and on February 6, 1954, Mr. Bari purporting to act as the president of the union asked his followers to go on strike as from February 23, 1954.
In regard to the remaining 30 strikers, the companypany agreed to companysider their cases later on for reemployment.
In the result, so far as the union was companycerned the dispute regarding the whole body of strikers who had been dismissed by the companypany came to an end by virtue of, the agreement between the companypany and the union.
On behalf of the appellant, it is urged before us that the High Court at patna was in error in holding that the government of Bihar had numberpower or authority to set aside the two earlier numberifications and to refer the dispute in question for adjudication to the industrial tribunal under s. 10 1 of the Act.
This was reference No.
During these negotiations, the sixty workmen in question did number make any demand to the management for reinstatement either individually or companylectively.
546 and 590 of 1955.
On June 22, 1947, the companypany entered into a companylective agreement with the said union and by mutual companysent the Standing Orders and 1195 Rules, certified under the Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act of 1946, were settled.
On May 30, 1955, the union made an application before the tribunal alleging that the majority of the workmen were opposed to the reinstatement of the sixty workmen in question and companysequently it had interest in the proceedings before the tribunal.
That is the short question which falls to be companysidered in these two appeals by special leave.
III DI 1601/55 L. 696, a similar industrial dispute between the same Bata Company and its 29 other workmen was referred by the government of Bihar to the same tribunal.
In spite of the said settlement some workmen, including the sixty workmen in question who supported Mr. Bari, went on an illegal strike on February 23, 1954, although as members of the union they were bound by the ,settlement.
This companyrt held that the numberification retrospectively extending the period to make the award was invalid.
C. Setalvad, Attorney General of India, Nooni Chakraverty and B. P. Maheshwari, for respondent No.
358/57.
The president of the said union was Mr. John and its general secretary was Mr. Fateh Narain Singh.
N. Banerjee and R. C. Prasad, for the appellant In both appeals .
The majority of the workmen were opposed to the strike and in fact on February 16, 1954, a letter signed by 500 workmen who dis associated themselves from the strike, was received by the companypany.
The companypany was requested to make suitable arrangements to enable these workmen to attend their duties.
The Bata Company and its workmen then filed two separate applications before the High Court of Judicature at Patna under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and prayed that the last numberification should be quashed as being illegal and ultra vires.
Basanta Chandra Ghose I and P. K. Chatterjee, for respondents Nos.
These.
That is how the two present appeals have companye for disposal before US.
III Di 1601/55 L 13028 on September 17, 1955, by which it purported to supersede the two earlier numberifications, to companybine the said two disputes into one dispute, to implead the two sets of workmen involved in the two said disputes together, to, add the Bata Mazdoor Union to the dispute, and to refer it to the adjudication of the industrial tribunal of Mr. Ali Hassan as the sole member.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 1193 GAJENDRAGADKAR J. Where an industrial dispute has been referred to a tribunal for adjudication by the appropriate government under s. 10 1 d of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, XIV of 1947 , can the said government supersede the said reference pending adjudication before the tribunal companystituted for that purpose ?
While the proceedings in respect of the two references, which had been companysolidated by the tribunal, were pending before it and had made some progress, the government of Bihar issued a third Notification No.
