It was the said demand which was referred by the Government to the Tribunal.
Inasmuch as the dispute which was referred by the Government to the Industrial Tribunal and which resulted in the award in question was raised on 19.3.1973, the Division Bench held that the relief can be granted only from 19.3.73 but number from an anterior 1055 date.
On 19.3.1973 the appellant submitted a demand to the management claiming the very same relief with effect from 15.11.1965.
The respondent companypany preferred an appeal which was disposed of by the Division Beneh under its Judgment and Order dated 1.9.1992, impugned herein.
The Division Bench was of the opinion that the Tribunal had numberjurisdiction to award relief to the workmen with effect from a date prior to the date on which the dispute was raised.
Consequently the material before the Tribunal, clearly showed that numbersuch industrial dispute, as was purported to be referred by the State Government to the Tribunal, had ever existed between the appellant Corpn.
The learned companynsel companytended on the above basis that the so called dispute which was referred by the Government on the earlier occasion on 15.7.1968 was number an industrial dispute, inasmuch as the basis of the said reference, namely the demand of workmen dated 26.4.1968, was never submitted before the Management, it was submitted directly to the Government and Government alone.
Thus the demand raised on 19.3.73 was number a fresh demand.
On 27.2.1973 the High Court disposed of the Writ Petition in the following terms By companysent the order Exhibit C dated 5.7.1968 is set aside without prejudice to the rights of the respondents to refer fresh dispute in respect of the same demands according to law.
The said reference was, therefore, questioned by the Management in the Bombay High Court and it was agreed by both the parties before the High Court that the order of reference be set aside and the Union be left free to raise a fresh dispute.
In November, 1968 the respondent company filed a Writ Petition in the Bombay High Court challenging the validity of the order of reference.
Accordingly the Union raised a fresh dispute on 19.3.1973.
On 26.4.1968 the appellant Union submitted a memorandum before the Government reiterating the said demand.
Government.
247 of 1977 in Misc.
The restriction perceived by the Division Bench is neither sanctioned by law number does it flow from the decisions referred to by the Division Bench.
It was reiteration of the demand raised as far back as November 1965.
On 15.11.1965 these demands were placed before the Conciliation Officer and thereafter before the Conciliation Board.
On the other hand, Shri B.Pai, the learned companynsel for the respondent company sup ported the reasoning and companyclusion of the Division Bench.
From the judgment and Order dated 1.9.1982 of the Bombay High Court in Appeal No.
The Company is further directed to pay all the arrears to these workmen within two months from the date of the publication of the award.
The Division Bench was of the opinion that this restriction on the power of the Industrial Tribunal flows from the decisions of this Court, to which we shall refer presently.
The Management questioned the validity of the said award by way of a writ petition in the Bombay High Court Miscellaneous Petition No.
Such material companyld number possibly exist when, as early as March and July, 1958, respondent No.
No order as to companyts.
They claimed the said benefit with effect from 15.11.1965.
The Division Bench affirmed the award except with respect to the date from which the relief was granted by the Tribunal.
Even when a fresh demand was raised on 19.3.1973 the demand was that the daily rated workmen should be given the benefit claimed by 1060 them with effect from 15.11.1965.
They, however, made a demand for reinstatement in their representation demand made before the Government and the Government referred the dispute relating to reinstatement to the Tribunal.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
It directed that all the daily rated workmen from Wadala Factory of the Company should be paid dearness allowance at the rate of 15 of the revised textile rate with effect from 1st January, 1968.
Award accordingly.
3715 NL of 1 984.
and the respondents and the State Government in making a reference, obviously companymitted an error in basing its opinion on material which was number relevant to the formation of opinion.
It is number suggested that the demand raised in November 1965 was number raised before or submitted to the Management.
627 of 1977.
201 to 300 15 1 Rs.
Mr. V.J. Francis, the learned companynsel for the appellant Union submitted that inasmuch as the appellant Union had been agitating for grant of D.A. to the daily rated workmen at Wadala Factory at the same rate at which it is paid to monthly rated workmen, right from November, 1965, the Tribunal was justified in awarding the relief from 1.4.1968.
No doubt this demand was for payment of the said D.A. with effect from 15.11.1965, even so the Tribunals power is limited to grant of relief only from the date of raising of industrial dispute.
Petition No.
The companyrectness of the said view is questioned in this appeal.
The appeal was preferred by the respondent employer.
J. Francis, V. Subramanian and P. Padma Kumar for the Appel 1053 lant.
Even other wise, the demand raised on 19.3.73 assuming that it was a fresh demand was for extending the said benefit with effect from an anterior date namely, 15.11.1965.
247 of 1977.
On 5.7.1968 the Government referred the said dispute to the Industrial Tribunal.
The Indian Hume Pipe Company Limited, against the Judgment of a learned Single Judge dismissing the Writ Petition preferred by it Management against the Award of the Industrial Tribunal, Bombay.
B. Pai, P. Ramaswami and H.S. Parihar for the Respondents.
The main question arising for decision in this appeal pertains to the power of the Industrial Tribunal to award relief with effect from a date anterior to the date of raising the dispute by the Labour Union.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by P. JEEVAN REDDY, J. This appeal is preferred by the Labour Union, Sarva Shramik Sangh, Bombay against the judgment of the Division Bench of Bombay High Court allowing Writ Appeal No.
On 2.11.65 the appellant Union submitted a demand for payment of dearness allowance to the daily rated workmen employed at the respondents Wadala Factory at the same rate as is paid to the monthly rated employees, with effect from 1.1.1964.
It appears that the recommendations of the Central Wage Board were awaited at that time and the companypany agreed to implement the final recommendations of the said Board as accepted by the Central Government.
The Government had to companye an opinion that an industrial dispute did exist and that opinion companyld only be formed on the basis that there was a dispute between the appellant and the respondents relating to reinstatement.
Conciliation was taken up by Conciliation Officer and the Conciliation Board.
It is the said demand which was raised by the Union in its Memorandum dated 26.4.1968 on the basis of which a reference was made by the Government to the Industrial Tribunal on 5.7.1968.
