LexSTATE OF BOMBAY versus K. P. KRISHNAN AND OTHERS. (AND CONNECTED APPEAL)
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
' ' I \ ' 1 I S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 227 STATE OF BOMBAY v. K. P. KRISHNAN Ar-.D OTHERS. (AND CONNECTED APPEAL) (B. P. SINHA, c. J., J. L. KAPUR, P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. SuBB<). RAo and K. N. WANCHOO, JJ.) Industrial Dispute - Failure of conciliation - Appropriate Government's power of reference~Order of refusal-Ilea.sons, if must be germane to the issue-Classification-Bonus-Industrial Dis- putes Act, r947 (r4 of r947), ss. r2(5), ro(r). Section r2(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, r947, properly construed, does not by itself confer the power on the appropriate Government to make a reference. That power is really contai- ned in s. ro(r) of the Act. In deciding whether it should or should not make a reference under s. 12(5) of the Act the appro- priate Government need not base its decision solely on the report of the conciliation officer, but is free to take into consideration all other relevant facts and circumstances under s. ro(r), and where it refused to make a reference it must record and com- municate its reasons therefor to the parties concerned. Such reasons, however, must be germane, and not extraneous or irrele- vant, to the dispute. But in exercising such wide powers as are conferred by s. 10(1), the appropriate Government must act fairly and reason- ably and not in a punitive spirit, and although considerations of expediency may not be wholly excluded, it must not be swayed by any extraneous considerations. Consequently, in a case where the issues in dispute related to a claim of classification for specified employees and additio- nal bonus and the sole ground on which the Government refused to refer the dispute for adjudication under s. 12(5) was that the employees had adopted go-slow tactics during the relevant year, although the company had nevertheless voluntarily paid three months' bonus for that year and the report of the conciliation officer was in favour of the employees, Held, that the Government acted on irrelevant considera- tions and its decision being wholly punitive in character a clear case for the issue of a writ of mandamus was made out. Held, further, that since the work done by the employees prima facie justified the claim for classification and it was in consonance with the practice prevailing in other comparable concerns, the misconduct of the respondents could be no ground for refusing reference as the claim was in regard to the future benefit to the employees. August r8. 228 SUPilE!\!E COlJHT REPOHTS [ 1961] 196o The claim of bonus being also prima facic justified by the - profits earned <luring the relevant yrar in accorcianrr ,,·ith v.ell St(lte 0 / Bombay ~:l'ttlcd principles of industrial adjudication, thr order of refusal v. "·as in the nature of a punitive action that y,.·as ''•h01ly inr.onsis- /( P I<1i.~li11a11 trnt with the object of the Act. 6- Other.;, CrvIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals ~OS. 37 & 38 of 1957. Appeals from the judgment and order dated August 30, 1955, of the former Bombay High Court in Appeals Nos. 55 and 56 of I 955, a.rising out of the judgment and order dated June 23, 1955, of the said High Court in Misc. Application No. 80 of 1955. C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor.General of India, R. Gana- pathy Iyer and R. H. Dhehar, for the appellant (in C. A. No. 37 of 57) and respondent l"o. 6 (in C. A. No. 38/57). S. D. Vimadalal and I. N. Shroff, for the appellant (in C. A. No. 38/57) and respondont No. 6 (in C. A. No. 37/57.) Rajni Patel, S. N. Andley, J.B. Dadachanji, Ramesh- war Nath and P. L. Vohra, for respondents Noa. I and 3 to 5 (in both the appeals). S. B. Naik and K. R.·Chaudhuri, for respondent No. 2 (in both the appeals). 1960. August 18. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Gajrnd,acadko' J. GAJENDRAGADKAR J.-These two appeals arioe from an industrial disputo betwcon the Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India Ltd., (hereafter called the company) and its workmen (here!'fter called the res- pondents), and they raise a short and interesting question about the construction of s. 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act 14 of 194 7 (hereafter called the Act). lt appears that the respondents addressed four demands to the company ; they were in respect of gratuity, holidays, classification of certain emplo- yees and for the payment of an unconditional bonus for the financial year ended October 31, 1953. The respondents' union also addressed t.hc Assistant
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.