MAHARASHTRA FIRESTONE TYRE AND RUBBER CO Vs. K P KRISHNANIN BOTH THE APPEALS :K P KRISHNANIN BOTH THE APPEALS
LAWS(SC)-1960-8-7
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: BOMBAY)
Decided on August 18,1960

STATE OF BOMBAY Appellant
VERSUS
K.P.KRISHNAN Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

RAM KUSHAN VS. SECRETARY LABOUR DELHI ADMINISTRATION [LAWS(DLH)-1984-8-15] [REFERRED TO]
RAM GOPAL VS. AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-1999-7-115] [REFERRED .7.]
SUBHASH CHAND VS. GOVT OF NCT [LAWS(DLH)-2005-2-84] [RELIED 0N . (RELIED) [PARA 9] 5.]
RAMESH KUMAR VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2006-11-136] [REFERRED TO]
K GEORGE CHACKO VS. SECRETARY LABOUR [LAWS(DLH)-2006-12-133] [REFERRED TO]
GANESH KUMAR VS. UOI [LAWS(DLH)-2007-4-142] [REFERRED TO]
PREM CHAND VS. UOI [LAWS(DLH)-2007-7-139] [REFERRED TO]
VINUBHAI HARILAL PANCHAL VS. N H SHETHNA DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [LAWS(GJH)-1961-4-17] [REFERRED]
HIRALAL HARJIVANDAS VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-1964-3-5] [CASES REFERRED]
ADAMJI M BADRI VS. LABOUR OFFICER [LAWS(GJH)-1980-3-1] [REFERRED TO]
BASANT TALKIES BROACH VS. GOVT LABOUR OFFICER BROACH [LAWS(GJH)-1980-3-6] [REFERRED]
COMMR OF INCOME-TAX UNITED PROVINCES LUCKNOW VS. LACHHMAN DAS MOOL CHAND [LAWS(ALL)-1952-11-28] [REFERRED TO]
BHAGWATI PRASAD TEWARI VS. UNION OF INDIA UOI [LAWS(ALL)-1995-9-20] [REFERRED TO]
NAGA PEOPLES MOVEMENT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GAU)-1987-10-1] [REFERRED TO]
GABERIEL INDIA LIMITED VS. STATE OF H P [LAWS(HPH)-1994-10-4] [REFERRED TO]
SHUBH TIMB STEELS LTD VS. STATE OF H P [LAWS(HPH)-1997-1-9] [REFERRED TO]
V R RAJKUMAR VS. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-1984-8-15] [REFERRED TO]
TELUGUNADU WORKCHARGED EMPLOYEES VS. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA [LAWS(APH)-1997-4-69] [REFERRED TO]
RETIRED EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION VS. GOVT OF A P [LAWS(APH)-2008-3-14] [REFERRED TO]
BHARAT ELECTRONIC EMPLOYEES UNION VS. STATE OF MYSORE [LAWS(KAR)-1968-10-11] [RELIED ON]
B SIDDOJI RAO VS. STATE OF MYSORE [LAWS(KAR)-1969-6-5] [REFERRED TO]
WORKERS AND STAFF ASSOCIATION OF GOVT SOAP FACTORY VS. STATE OF MYSORE [LAWS(KAR)-1970-7-24] [REFERRED TO]
AMAL KR GHATAK VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-1971-3-1] [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN TELEPHONE INDUSTRIES LTD VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-1978-4-31] [REFERRED TO]
SUSHIL CHANDRA CHOWDHURY VS. CHAKRABORTY COMMISSION OF INQUIRY [LAWS(CAL)-1980-3-20] [REFERRED TO]
SHYAM SUNDAR BATABYAL VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-1998-4-23] [REFERRED TO]
N S RAGHAVENDRA RAO VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-1980-6-26] [REFERRED TO]
MUNICHOWDAPPA C VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-1984-9-2] [REFERRED TO]
BANAVASI VYAVASAYA SEVA SAHAKARISANGH LIMITED VS. N C BAPAT [LAWS(KAR)-1994-7-43] [FOLLOWED ON]
MANAGEMENT OF SANDOZ INDIA LTD VS. C C JOSEPH [LAWS(KAR)-1996-7-53] [REFERRED TO]
BOMBAY UNION OF JOURNALISTS VS. STATE OF BOMBAY [LAWS(SC)-1963-12-14] [FOLLOWED]
BARIUM CHEMICALS LIMITED VS. COMPANY LAW BOARD [LAWS(SC)-1966-5-10] [REFERRED]
ROHTAS INDUSTRIES VS. S D AGARWAL [LAWS(SC)-1968-12-12] [DISCUSSED]
PREMIER AUTOMOBILES LIMITED AUTOMATIC ELECTRIC PVT LIMITED VS. KAMLEKAR SHANTARAM WADKE OF BOMBAY :ENGINEERING MAZDOOR SABHA [LAWS(SC)-1975-8-28] [FOLLOWED]
HOCHTIEF GAMMON VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(SC)-1975-9-36] [FOLLOWED]
PREM KAKAR VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(SC)-1976-4-26] [RELIED ON]
RAM AVTAR SHARMA SURINDER KUMAR SHARMA VS. STATE OF HARYANA:UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-1985-4-15] [RELIED ON]
JITENDRA NATH BISWAS VS. EMPIRE OF INDIA AND CEYLONE TEA CO [LAWS(SC)-1989-8-50] [REFERRED TO]
GUJARAT MAZDOOR PANCHAYAT VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-1991-6-6] [REFERRED]
HASSAM NOOR MOHAMED VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-1996-1-12] [REFERRED]
JIVIBEN GOVINDBHAI CHAMAR VS. UDYAN SAHAYAK MODHERA [LAWS(GJH)-1999-7-36] [REFERRED]
SAURASHTRA EMPLOYEES UNION VS. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER [LAWS(GJH)-2000-2-42] [REFERRED TO]
JAGUBHA NATHUBHAS ZALA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GJH)-2001-7-50] [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT VS. GUJARAT MAZDOOR SABHA [LAWS(GJH)-2006-1-45] [REFERRED TO]
I T C LTD VS. NON PENSIONERS ASSOCIATION [LAWS(APH)-1995-12-60] [REFERRED TO]
AJIT KUMAR ROY VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-1964-3-9] [REFERRED TO]
VISHNU SADAY BHATTACHARYA VS. MANAGER CYCLE INDUSTRIES M P LAGHU UDYOG [LAWS(MPH)-1972-2-9] [REFERRED TO]
OPERATION DEPARTMENT VS. GOVERNMENT OF MADRAS [LAWS(MAD)-1963-11-28] [REFERRED TO]
GOVERNMENT OF MADRAS VS. WORKMEN OF SOUTH INDIA SAIVA SIDDHANTA WORKS PUBLISHING [LAWS(MAD)-1963-11-15] [REFERRED TO]
M P BANK EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MPH)-1985-8-9] [REFERRED TO]
COIMBATORE DISTRICT TEXTILE MILLS STAFF UNION VS. STATE OF MADRAS [LAWS(MAD)-1967-3-7] [REFERRED TO]
WORKMEN OF DALMIA CEMENT BHARAT VS. STATE GOVERNMENT OF MADRAS [LAWS(MAD)-1968-2-13] [REFERRED TO]
MADRAS DISTRICT AUTOMOBILE AND GENERAL EMPLOYEES UNION VS. STATE OF MADRAS [LAWS(MAD)-1968-3-19] [REFERRED TO]
ANTISEPTIC EMPLOYEES UNIT VS. STATE OF MADRAS [LAWS(MAD)-1968-6-2] [REFERRED TO]
GANDHARBA BHOI VS. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD [LAWS(ORI)-1987-2-11] [REFERRED TO]
ORIENT PAPER MILLS SRAMIK CONGRESS VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-1987-5-1] [REFERRED TO]
K N VELLAYAN VS. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-1979-2-26] [REFERRED TO]
K RAMASWAMY VS. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-1979-7-30] [REFERRED TO]
M P KOYLA MAZDOOR SABHA VS. SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD [LAWS(MPH)-1995-8-3] [REFERRED TO]
SUDARSHAN LAL DUBEY VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MPH)-1996-1-5] [REFERRED TO]
C MANUEL VS. MANAGEMENT OF NEEDLE INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD [LAWS(MAD)-1981-3-36] [REFERRED TO]
WORKMEN OF COCHIN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-1975-10-24] [REFERRED TO]
GOURI SANKAR DHAR VS. GOVERNMENT OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-1996-5-4] [REFERRED TO]
WORKMEN OF J AND P COATS INDIA PVT LTD VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-1977-6-38] [REFERRED TO]
KUNJURAMAN NAIR VS. SECRETARY TO LABOUR DEPARTMENT [LAWS(KER)-1977-12-26] [REFERRED TO]
SHAW WALLACE AND COMPANY LIMITED VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-1987-12-29] [REFERRED TO]
BOMBAY LABOUR UNION VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-1966-9-2] [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL UNION OF COMMERCIAL EMPLOYEES VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-1966-10-1] [REFERRED TO]
WORKMEN OF KEMPT 1 LTD VS. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-1990-12-41] [REFERRED TO]
COOPER ENGINEERING LTD VS. D M ANEY [LAWS(BOM)-1969-8-5] [REFERRED TO]
PREMIER AUTOMOBILES LIMITED VS. KAMLAKAR SHANTARAM WADKE [LAWS(BOM)-1973-2-9] [REFERRED TO]
DHENKANAL MEHENTAR SANGHA VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-2008-12-19] [REFERRED TO]
PHOENIX MILLS LIMITED VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-1977-12-6] [REFERRED TO]
DY C M E SUB AREA MANAGER VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MPH)-2007-9-34] [REFERRED TO]
ROHINTON P DARUWALLA VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR CONCILIATION [LAWS(BOM)-1985-1-17] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGEMENT OF GORDON WOODROFFE LIMITED VS. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-1996-6-38] [REFERRED TO]
N K P ABDUL HAQ VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2009-11-41] [REFERRED TO]
ALL INDIA PORT AND DOCK WORKERS FEDERATION VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-1989-3-23] [REFERRED TO]
SHEROO KALIKUSHROO FATAKIA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-1990-7-12] [REFERRED TO]
ASSOCIATION OF ENGINEERING WORKERS VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-1991-1-15] [REFERRED TO]
PHOENIX MILLS LTD VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-1991-10-7] [REFERRED TO]
MODERN FOUNDRY AND MACHINE WORKS LIMITED AHMEDNAGAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-1999-3-3] [REFERRED TO]
DEVDAS S AMIN VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2000-7-17] [REFERRED TO]
LEENA PATADE VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-2002-1-59] [REFERRED TO]
O N G C MADRAS PORT CONTRACT EMPLOYEES UNION VS. MANAGEMENT OF OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD [LAWS(MAD)-2005-2-6] [REFERRED TO]
UNION BANK OF INDIA VS. UNION BANK OF INDIA EMPLOYEES UNION [LAWS(BOM)-2003-6-89] [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL ORGANIC CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2007-4-174] [REFERRED TO]
JEROO DASTUR VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-2007-11-23] [REFERRED TO]
BALASAHEB AMBADAS GUNDE VS. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY FOR MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT [LAWS(BOM)-2009-7-254] [REFERRED TO]
P RAJASEKARAN VS. INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK [LAWS(MAD)-2009-11-190] [REFERRED TO]
SURINDER SHUKLA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2008-1-71] [REFERRED TO]
RAM SHIROMANI YADAV VS. CONCILIATION OFFICER [LAWS(ALL)-2012-1-166] [REFERRED TO]
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA VS. PALAI CENTRAL BANK LTD [LAWS(KER)-1960-12-9] [REFERRED TO]
KOTTAYAM PLYWOOD WORKERS UNION KOTTAYAM VS. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-1961-10-1] [REFERRED TO]
ROURKELA WORKERS UNION VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-1985-10-21] [REFERRED TO]
COMMONWEALTH TRUST LIMITED CALICUT VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-1965-8-22] [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. JANAMOHAN DAS [LAWS(ORI)-1993-1-12] [REFERRED TO]
KERALA PRIVATE MOTOR AND MECHANICAL WORKERS VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-1992-6-2] [REFERRED TO]
V P JAYANARAYAN VS. UNION OF INDIA UOI [LAWS(KER)-1997-7-19] [REFERRED TO]
VEERESWARA SPINNING MILLS P LTD VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2010-7-195] [REFERRED TO]
VEERESWARA SPINNING MILLS P LTD VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2010-7-195] [REFERRED TO]
SONA RAM RANGA RAM VS. CENTRAL GOVERNMENT [LAWS(P&H)-1963-4-10] [REFERRED TO]
WORKMEN OF OSWAL WEAVING FACTORY VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-1965-5-26] [REFERRED TO]
AMRITSAR TEXTILE CLERKS ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-1966-9-5] [REFERRED TO]
AJMER MOTOR MAZDOOR UNION AJMER VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1963-11-3] [REFERRED TO]
MANOHAR LAL VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-1983-5-30] [REFERRED TO]
O P GAUBA VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-1990-1-35] [REFERRED TO]
SADHU SINGH VS. LABOUR COMMISSIONER [LAWS(P&H)-1991-4-9] [REFERRED TO]
DINESH PRASAD VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-1984-11-3] [REFERRED TO]
MANOHAR SINGH NEECH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(PAT)-1986-8-10] [REFERRED TO]
HUKAM CHAND VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(RAJ)-1985-1-9] [REFERRED TO]
DHARAM PAL VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-1993-7-2] [REFERRED TO]
SUSHILA MITTAL ALIAS SHILA VS. LABOUR COMMISSIONER [LAWS(P&H)-1993-11-24] [REFERRED TO]
MANGI LAL VS. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT [LAWS(RAJ)-1987-1-76] [REFERRED TO]
GRIDHAR GOPAL TIWARY VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(PAT)-1991-9-23] [REFERRED TO]
SUKHRAM VS. LABOUR COMMISSIONER [LAWS(P&H)-1995-8-8] [REFERRED TO]
PUNJAB ANAND LAMP EMPLOYEES UNION VS. PUNJAB ANAND LAMP INDUSTRY LTD [LAWS(P&H)-1996-2-96] [REFERRED TO]
JAGDISH CHANDER VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-1996-3-64] [REFERRED TO]
THOMSON PRESS INDIA LTD VS. PRESIDING OFFICER INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I [LAWS(P&H)-1996-9-21] [REFERRED TO]
RADHEY SHYAM VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-1997-11-1] [REFERRED TO]
KALU RAM VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1992-3-15] [REFERRED TO]
MAHABIR ALIAS BHIRA VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2004-8-12] [REFERRED TO]
ALCOBEX METALS LTD VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2002-3-45] [REFERRED TO]
PARSA RAM VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(RAJ)-2007-1-34] [REFERRED TO]
LALIT KUMAR VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(RAJ)-2007-3-68] [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRA SINGH GEHLOT VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(RAJ)-1999-7-61] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH WALIA VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2014-1-47] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH WALIA VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2014-1-47] [REFERRED TO]
SANJAY KUMAR RANA VS. INDUST. FINANCE CORP. OF (I) LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2005-12-160] [REFERRED TO]
SANJAY KUMAR RANA VS. INDUST. FINANCE CORP. OF (I) LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2005-12-160] [REFERRED TO]
PANDAY (S.N.) VS. STATE OF WEST BANGAL [LAWS(CAL)-1962-4-23] [REFERRED TO]
UNITED WHITE METALS LIMITED VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2014-7-196] [REFERRED TO]
O P SARAF VS. STATE [LAWS(J&K)-1988-3-14] [REFERRED TO]
NARENDRA SINGH THAKUR VS. THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, CENTRAL RAILWAY, JABALPUR AND ANR. [LAWS(MPH)-2014-11-1] [REFERRED]
NARENDRA SINGH THAKUR VS. THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, CENTRAL RAILWAY, JABALPUR AND ANR. [LAWS(MPH)-2002-11-62] [REFERRED TO]
VIP INDUSTRIES SHRAMIK SANGH VS. VIP INDUSTRIES LIMITED [LAWS(BOM)-2014-10-86] [REFERRED TO]
NEELIMA SINGH VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2014-5-330] [REFERRED TO]
STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. DARSHAN KUMAR JINDAL [LAWS(P&H)-1979-2-19] [REFERRED TO]
M. PRAKASHAM VS. GOVT. OF INDIA [LAWS(APH)-1984-11-37] [REFERRED TO]
SUKHI RAM VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-1982-3-28] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. VS. SHIV CHARAN LAL SHARMA [LAWS(DLH)-2015-7-192] [REFERRED TO]
PONDICHERRY HINDUSTAN LEVEL THOZHILALAR SANGAM VS. THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, LABOUR DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2015-7-377] [REFERRED TO]
SHRI SUSHIL BORKOTOKI VS. COAL INDIA LTD., N. E. COAL FIELD AND ORS. [LAWS(GAU)-1988-6-18] [REFERRED TO]
CENTRAL REGIONAL WORKSHOP KARAMCHARI SANGH VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-1971-7-47] [REFERRED TO]
CHELLAPERUMAL (S.) VS. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU (BY SECRETARY, LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT DEPARTMENT, MADRAS), AND ANOTHER [LAWS(MAD)-1987-2-27] [REFERRED TO]
RESERVE BANK EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [LAWS(CAL)-1978-8-51] [REFERRED TO]
PRABHAKARAN VS. SECRETARY TO MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND REHABILITATION [LAWS(KER)-1983-11-37] [REFERRED TO]
VISHRAM GOPINATH PALEKAR AND OTHERS VS. BOARD OF TRUSTES OF PORT OF MORMUGAO AND OTHERS [LAWS(BOM)-1987-11-51] [REFERRED TO]
MAQUET MEDICAL INDIA PVT. LTD. & ANOTHER VS. ODISHA STATE MEDICAL CORPORATION LTD. & ANOTHER [LAWS(ORI)-2016-9-25] [REFERRED TO]
PONDICHERRY HINDUSTAN LEVEL THOZHILALAR SANGAM VS. SECRETARY; COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR, LABOUR DEPARTMENT; PONDS EXPORTS LIMITED FOOTWEAR FACTORY [LAWS(MAD)-2015-12-373] [REFERRED]
UNITED PROVINCES ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO LTD VS. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (HI), UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(CAL)-1973-9-35] [REFERRED]
MOINUDDIN VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(RAJ)-1980-9-61] [REFERRED]
SECRETARY BARAUNI TEL SHODHAK MAZDOOR UNION VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-1976-8-21] [REFERRED]
ALI SALAM VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER [LAWS(P&H)-2010-7-311] [REFERRED TO]
VINAYAK BAMA TAMBE VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR [LAWS(BOM)-1984-9-69] [REFERRED TO]
ATLAS CYCLE INDUSTRIES LTD , SONEPAT VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-1990-9-181] [REFERRED]
RAJINDER SINGH LAMBA VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-1995-2-197] [REFERRED]
GURJINDER SINGH VS. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND ORS [LAWS(P&H)-2010-10-473] [REFERRED]
M/S. PEERLESS INN VS. FOURTH INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL [LAWS(CAL)-2017-3-36] [REFERRED TO]
S. RAGHU VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(APH)-2017-3-69] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGEMENT OF LE MERIDIEN BANGALORE VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2017-11-181] [REFERRED TO]
P. VETRIVEL VS. P. DHANABAL [LAWS(MAD)-2018-6-9] [REFERRED TO]
STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(ALL)-2019-8-30] [REFERRED TO]
PRASANNAJIT NAYAK VS. STATE OF ODISHA [LAWS(ORI)-2022-2-5] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

GAJENDRAGADKAR - (1.), J. : These two appeals arise from an industrial dispute between the Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India Ltd., (hereafter called the company) and its workmen (hereinafter called the respondents), and they raise a short and interesting question about the construction of S. 12 (5) of the Industrial Disputes Act 14 of 1947 (hereinafter called the Act). It appears that the respondents addressed four demands to the company; they were in respect of gratuity, holidays, classification of certain employees and for the payment of an unconditional bonus for the financial year ended 31/10/1953. The respondents' union also addressed the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Bombay, forwarding to him a copy of the said demands, and intimating to him that since the company had not recognised the respondents' union there was no hope of any direct negotiations, between the union and the company. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour, who is also the conciliation officer, was therefore requested to commence the conciliation proceedings at an early date. Soon thereafter the company declared a bonus equivalent to 1/4th of the basic earnings for the year 1952-53. The respondents then informed the company that they were entitled to a much higher bonus having regard to the profits made by the company during the relevant year and that they had decided to accept the bonus offered by the company without prejudice to the demand already submitted by them in that behalf. After holding a preliminary discussion with the parties the conciliation officer examined the four demands made by the respondents and admitted into conciliation only two of them; they were in respect of the classification of certain employees and the bonus for the year 1952-53; the two remaining demands were not admitted in conciliation. The conciliation proceedings initiated by the conciliator, however, proved infructuous with the result that on 5/07/1954, the conciliator made his failure report under S. 12 (4) of the Act. In his report the conciliator has set out the arguments urged by both the parties before him in respect of both the items of dispute. In regard to the respondents' claim for bonus the conciliator made certain suggestions to the company but the company did not accept them, and so it became clear that there was no possibility of reaching a settlement on that issue. Incidentally the conciliator observed that it appeared to him that there was considerable substance in the case made out by the respondents for payment of additional bonus. The conciliator also dealt with the respondents' demand for classification and expressed his opinion that having regard to the type and nature of work which was done by the workmen in question it seemed clear that the said work was mainly of a clerical nature and the demand that the said workmen should be taken on the monthly-paid roll appeared to be in consonance with the practice prevailing in other comparable concerns. The management, however, told the conciliator that the said employees had received very liberal increments and had reached the maximum of their scales and so the management saw no reason to accede to the demand for classification. On receipt of this report the Government of Bombay (now the Government of Maharashtra) considered the matter and came to the conclusion that the dispute in question should not be referred to an industrial tribunal for its adjudication. Accordingly, as required by S. 12 (5) on 11/12/1954, the Government communicated to the respondents the said decision and stated that it does not propose to refer the said dispute to the tribunal under S. 12 (5) "for the reason that the workmen resorted to go slow during the year 1952-53". It is this decision of the Government refusing to refer the dispute for industrial adjudication that has given rise to the present proceedings.
(2.)ON 18/02/1955, the respondents filed in the Bombay High Court a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or other writ, direction or order against the State of Maharashtra (hereafter called the appellant) calling upon it to refer the said dispute for industrial adjudication under S. 10 (1) and S. 12 (5) of the Act. To this application the company was also impleaded as an opponent. This petition was heard by Tendolkar J. He held that S. 12 (5) in substance imposed an obligation on the appellant to refer the dispute provided it was satisfied that a case for reference had been made, and he came to the conclusion that the reason given by the appellant for refusing to make a reference was so extraneous that the respondents were entitled to a writ of mandamus against the appellant. Accordingly he directed that a mandamus shall issue against the appellant to reconsider the question of making or refusing to make a reference under S. 12 (5) ignoring the fact that there was a slow-down and taking into account only such reasons as are germane to the question of determining whether a reference should or should not be made.
Against this decision the appellant as well as the company preferred appeals. Chagla, C. J. and Desai, J., who constituted the Court of Appeal, allowed the two appeals to be consolidated, heard them together and came to the conclusion that the view taken by Tendolkar, J. was right and that the writ of mandamus had been properly issued against the appellant. The appellant and the company then applied for and obtained a certificate from the High Court and with that certificate they have come to this Court by their two Appeals Nos. 37 and 38 of 1957. These appeals have been ordered to be consolidated and have been heard together, and both of them raise the question about the construction of S. 12 (5) of the Act.

(3.)BEFORE dealing with the said question it would be convenient to state one more relevant fact. It is common ground that during a part of the relevant year the respondents had adopted go-slow tactics. According to the company the period of go-slow attitude was seven months whereas according to the respondents it was about five months. It is admitted that under cl. 23 (c) of the standing orders of the company willful slowing-down in performance of work, or abetment, or instigation thereof, amounts to misconduct, and it is not denied that as a result of the go-slow tactics adopted by the respondents disciplinary action was taken against 58 workmen employed by the company. The respondents' case is that despite the go-slow strategy adopted by them for some months during the relevant year the total production for the said period compares very favourably with the production for previous years and that the profit made by the company during the relevant year fully justifies their claim for additional bonus. The appellant has taken the view that because the respondents adopted go-slow strategy during the relevant year the industrial dispute raised by them in regard to bonus as well as classification was not to be referred for adjudication under S. 12 (5). It is in the light of these facts that we have to consider whether the validity of the order passed by the appellant refusing to refer the dispute for adjudication under S. 12 (5) can be sustained.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.