LexBOMBAY UNION OF JOURNALISTS & ORS. versus THE STATE OF BOMBAY & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
22 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [rg64J 196J justify his claim for rehabilitation and the Tribunal is in- Podar Pla.<tics (P) clined to reject the evidence which has been adduced, the Ltd. Tribunal must nevertheless award some rehabilitation on a v. Its Workmen purely hypothetical and imaginary ad hoc basis. In such .Gai•nd-;;;,dkar J. a case all that the Tribunal can do is to safeguard the posi- tion of the employer by giving him opportunity to adduce better evidence in future, and that is what the Tribunal has done in the present case. An attempt was then made by the learned Addi. Solici- tor-General to make a claim for the deduction of the wealth tax. It has been consistently held by this Court that in bonus calculations the employer is entitled to claim a deduc- tion of the income-tax as well as wealth tax; but, in the present case, there is no material to determine what the amount of wealth tax charged or paid is, and so, no relief can be granted to the appellant on that account. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed wi!h costs. Appeal dismissed. BOMBAY UNION OF JOURNALISTS & ORS. v. THE STATE OF BOMBAY & ANR. (P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. N. WANCHOO AND K. C. DAS ' GUPTA JJ.) Industrial Dispute-Reference by Government-Discretion of Govern· ment-Industrial Disputes Act (XIV of 1947), s. 25F-Scope of-Duty of Government to make a reference. The appellants 2 and 3 were working journalists and they 14-:re retrenched on payment of three months salary in lieu of notice. The first appellant took up their case and alleged that the retrenchment was not bona fi.de and they were in fact victimised. On the failure of conci· liation procee'din.gs a report was submitted to the State Government (respondent No. I). After hearing the parties concerned the Govem- a111t pup<! aa order rofusi•I to refor Iha dispute. The reasons given J .. 6 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS ·for the refusal were that the termination of service was retrenchment a.i.d the management did not appear to have acted mala fide. Thereupon the appel1ants filed a petition under Art. 226 •f the Constitution praying ior the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the Government to consider the matter afresh. The single Judge who heard the petition dismissed it and after appealing to a Division Bench witbOut success tla.e present appeal was filed by special leave granted by this Court. It was contended on behalf of the appellants that the Gove~mment while deciding whether a reference should be made has in fact decided the merits of the case and therefore the order of refusal to refer was illegal. The other contention was that t}t'e service of notice as required un'der s. 25F(c) of the Act was mandatory and the management not having served such a notice the Government ought to have taken this failure into consideration which the Government has not done. Held: When the appropriate Government considers the question as to whether any industrial dispute should be referred for adjudication or not, it may consider, prima jacie, the merits of the dispute and take into ac.count other relevant considerations which would help it to tlecide whether making a reference would be expedient or not. If the disput.e in question raises a question of law, or disputed questions of fact the Government should not purport to reach final conclusions because these are matters whic.h would normally be within the jurisdictiOn of the Industrial Tribunal. If the claim made is patently frivolous or is clearly belated or if the impact of the claim on the general relations between the employers and the employees in the region is likely to be adverse the Government may refuse to make a reference. The State of Bombay v. K. P. Krishnan, [1961] 1 S.C.R. 2'l:T. (ii) Clause (c) of s. 25F of the Act cannot be s•id to cons- titute a condition precedent which has to be fulfilled before retrenchment can be validly effected even though that clause bas been included under s. 25F along with els. (a) and (b) which prescribe condi- tions precedent. The observations in the following cases to the effect that s. 25F (c) is mandatory are clearly in the nature of obiter dicta. State of Bombay v. The Hospital MazdMr Sabha, [1960] 2 S.C.R. 366, The District Labour Association, Calcutta v. Ex-Empluyee1 of Tea Districts Labour Association, [1960] 3 S.C.R. 206 and Workmen .of Subhong Tea Estate v. The Outgoing Management of Suhhong T~a Es
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.