Vaidialingam, J. - (1.) This appeal, by the Management concerned, by special leave, is directed against the judgment of the Mysore High Court, dated October 23, 1964, dismissing Writ Petition No. 1985 of 1964, and declining to issue a writ of prohibition, restraining the second respondent, the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore-1, from proceeding with the adjudication, in I. D. No. 8 of 1963. The short facts, leading up to the State of Mysore, making the reference which is the subject of adjudication, by the second respondent, in I. D. No. 8 of 1963, are as follows:
(2.) The appellant is a textile mill, in Bangalore, manufacturing cotton, silk and cotswool piece-goods. After the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (Act XX of 1946) (hereinafter to be referred to as the Standing Orders Act) , came into force, the standing orders of the appellant's establishment were duly drawn up, and certified by the authorities. Those standing orders, among other things related to the question of leave to be granted to the workmen. By its order, dated August 2, 1955, the Government of Mysore referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore, for adjudication an industrial dispute raised by certain categories of workmen of the appellant company. That reference was number ed as I C. No. 11 of 1955. The dispute that was referred was: "Whether the Standing Orders filed by the Management and now certified by the Certifying Authority be modified as a modification to the existing Standing Orders as amended by the employees through their association in the light of the views and as indicated in the Annexure to this notification." The Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore, made an award, Exhibit M-6, on September 25, 1956, whereby the Tribunal directed the addition of certain clauses, in the Certified Standing Orders of the appellant company. There is no controversy that paragraphs 50 to 70, of Exhibit M-6, deal with privilege leave, sick leave and casual leave, which could be availed of by the workmen. Exhibit M-5 is a copy of the Certified Standing Orders of the Management company. After the amendments effected to those Standing Orders in pursuance of the award, Exhibit M-6, clauses l, 2, 3 and 4, of Order 9, of Exhibit M-5, deal with festival holidays leave with wages, medical leave and casual leave, respectively. The award, Exhibit M-6 after publication in the State Gazette, on October 18, 1956, came into operation on November 18, 1956, under the provisions of Section 19 (3) , read with Section 17A (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1847 (Act XIV of 1847) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) .
(3.) The first respondent began to make certain claims, for revision of the provisions, regarding leave, and as the appellant was not willing to concede those claims, the first respondent appears to have approached the State Government to refer the dispute, regarding this matter, to the Tribunal for adjudication; but the State Government by its order, Exhibit M-2, dated October 10, 1962, declined to refer the matter for adjudication. In the said order, the Government is of the view that as compared with leave facilities, provided for, in similar major industries, in Bangalore, the leave facilities then granted by the Management to the workmen of the appellant company, cannot be considered to be inadequate, and, therefore the issue raised, by the workmen, does not merit reference, for adjudication. But, nevertheless, later on the State Government, referred for adjudication by its order, dated March 20, 1963, the following matters, to the second respondent: "Whether the workmen of Bangalore Woollen, Cotton and Silk Mills Co. Ltd., are entitled to the following leave benefits: (a) Privilege leave for one month in a year with pay. (b) Casual leave of 12 days in a year with pay. (c) Sick leave for 30 days in a year with full pay less E. S. I. benefits If not, to what reliefs they are entitled to." This reference, out of which the present proceedings arise, was registered as I. D. No. 8 of 1963. From the questions, referred to above, it will be seen that the dispute, that was referred, for adjudication almost exclusively relates to the question of privilege leave, casual leave, and sick leave, which are already provided for, in the Standing Orders, of the Management, Exhibit M-5.;