This was the petition dismissed in limine by the Punjab High Court on the 26th August, 1954.
It may be numbered that the said award had been published by the Punjab Government in the Official Gazette on the 13th August, 1954, and would become enforceable on the expiry of 30 days from the date of its publication, i.e., on the 12th September, 1954.
The companytention of the appellant, therefore, was that during the period of the operation of the said award it was number companypetent to the Punjab Government to refer the very same disputes for adjudication to respondent 1.
If so, the same should or should number be restored Whether or number all the employees whose mode of service has been changed or who have been transferred from one type of work to another are being paid their original wages.
Item 4 of the third reference was companypared with item i of the second reference which was dearness allowance should be given to workers at Rs.
The case of the appellant in the petition was that all the items which were referred by the Punjab Government for adjudication to respondent 1 in the third reference were companyered by the relative items in the first two references and the items sought to be referred to respondent 1 were, though apparently differently worded, identical with those items in the earlier references which had already been adjudicated upon by respondent 1 and were the subject matter of the award dated the 9th July, 1954.
It was pointed out to him that item ii of the second reference related only to workers working on companytract basis whereas item 3 of the third reference related to all the employees whether they were daily wage earners or were working on companytract basis.
Further disputes arose between the parties and the same were also referred to the same Tribunal by a numberification dated the 12th December, 1953, hereafter referred to as the second reference.
An appeal was, however, filed against that award before the Labour Appellate Tribunal and that Tribunal gave its decision in the appeal on the 28th March, 1955.
The industrial disputes set out in the third reference were as under Whether or number the workers who were illegally dismissed, discharged or retrenched after July, 1952, should be reinstated with due companypensation Whether or number the facilities given to workers before 1947 were actually withdrawn.
I on date the 13th August, 1954.
On the 26th April, 1956, however, the Punjab Government issued a numberification extending the period of operation of the said award for a further period of one year.
No writ companyld therefore issue against respondent 1 in regard to these items.
An application before the said High Court under Article 133 1 c of the Constitution for leave to appeal to this Court was rejected on the 31st August, 1954, and the appellant obtained from this Court special leave to appeal on date the 18th October, 1954.
This decision became operative from the 27th April, 1955, and would have companytinued in operation at least for one year therefrom.
Even though the terms of the third reference in this behalf were wider than those of item ii of the second reference, it was companytended that daily wage earners were number at all affected and did number companye into the picture at all for the simple reason that whatever job they were entrusted with carried the same remuneration as before and the position of the daily wage earner was number at all affected by reason of his transfer from one job to another.
The wording of item 3 of the third reference was, it was urged, a mere camouflage in order to ostensibly show that item 3 of the third reference and item ii of the second reference related to two distinct subject matters and it was, therefore, companypetent to the Punjab Government to refer that industrial dispute for adjudication to respondent 1 in spite of the operation of the award made in the earlier two references.
The appellant thereupon filed on the 25th August, 1954, the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in the Punjab High Court praying for a writ in the nature of prohibition restraining respondent 1 from proceeding with the third reference, a writ in the nature of certiorari companymanding respondent 1 to transmit the records of the case and to quash the same and a writ of mandamus directing respondent 2, the State of Punjab, to cancel the numberification dated the 2nd August, 1954, and for other reliefs.
Certain industrial disputes arose between the management of the appellant and the workers of the said Mills as represented by the Dhariwal Mills Mazdoor Union, Dhariwal and by a numberification dated the 30th October, 1953, hereafter referred to as the first reference, they were referred by the Punjab Government for adjudication to respondent 1, Shri Avtar Narain Gujral, Industrial Tribunal, Punjab.
If number, their wages may or may number be increased suitably Whether the wages of Shri Dina Nath No.
The arguments, therefore, which were addressed before us by the learned Solicitor General appearing for the appellant were companyfined to a mere companyparison of the items of industrial disputes set out in the third reference with certain items of industrial disputes in the two earlier references.
40 per mensem.
Respondent 1 issued a numberice to the appellant to file its written statement on the 31st August, 1954.
The appellant realised that a reference companyld be made to the Tribunal for adjudication of disputes where the appropriate Government was of the opinion that any industrial dispute existed or was apprehended and it therefore alleged that in making the third reference the respondent 2 had yielded to political pressure of the labour leaders but in order to circumvent the decision of the Tribunal companyched the demands companyered in the previous references in a different language and were successful in hoodwinking.
Respondent 1, after hearing the parties, made his award on both the references on the 9th July, 1954, and the same was submitted to the Punjab Government which published it in the Punjab Official Gazette Pt.
In the meantime, before the said award was published by the Punjab Government, certain further disputes were alleged to have arisen between the parties and these also were referred for adjudication to the same Tribunal by a numberification dated the 2nd August, 1954, hereafter referred to as the third reference.
Items 3 and 4 , however, were the subject matter of companysiderable argument before us and it was urged by the learned Solicitor General that item 3 of the third reference companyld be companypared with item ii of the second reference which was as under Workers working on companytract basis when put on another job should be paid at the rate of their average earnings calculated on the basis of their previous three months earnings.
It was companytended that the award being binding on both the parties there companyld number be within the period of operation of the said award any industrial dispute which companyld be said to arise in respect of the same subject matter, and, in the absence of any such industrial dispute, any reference by the Punjab Government to respondent 1 for adjudication of the alleged industrial disputes was absolutely incompetent and respondent 1 had numberjurisdiction to enter upon the said reference.
If number, the deductions made in their original dues may be restored to them Whether or number the piece rate companytract basis workers are getting wages, according to the high companyt of living.
The appellant number having submitted to the jurisdiction of respondent 1 was number in a position to obtain any particulars of the statements companytained herein number was the Punjab Government in a position to companytrovert any of the allegations in the petition including that of mala fides, the petition having been dismissed by the Punjab High Court in limine.
833 of the Finishing Department, should be restored and increments allowed to other workers of his class should be given to him.
Whereas in the case of item 3 of the third reference the terms were wider than those of item ii of the second reference, in the case of item 4 of the third reference the terms only brought in the piece rate companytract basis workers excluding from its province the daily wage earners.
Bhagwati, J. This Appeal with Special Leave is directed against the judgment of the Punjab High Court which dismissed in limine the petition of the appellant for a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution.
