- (1.) Where an industrial dispute has been referred to a tribunal for adjudication by the appropriate government under S. 10(1) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (XIV of1947), can the said government supersede the said reference pending adjudication before the tribunal constituted for that purpose That is the short question which falls to be considered in these two appeals by special leave. The question arises in this way: On 8-10-1954, by Notification No. III/D1-1602 /54 L-15225, the Government of Bihar referred an industrial dispute between the management of the Bata Shoe Co. Ltd., Dighaghat (Patna) and their 31 workmen, mentioned in annexure 'A', in exercise of the powers conferred on the said government by S. 7 read with S. 10(1) of the Act. The dispute was whether the dismissal of the workmen in question was justified; if not, whether they were entitled to reinstatement or any other relief. For the adjudication of this dispute, an industrial tribunal with Mr. Ali Hassan as the sole member was constituted. This was reference No. 10 of 1954. Then, on 15-1-1955, by Notification No. III/DI-1601/55 L 696, a similar industrial dispute between the same Bata Company and its 29 other workmen was referred by the Government of Bihar to the same tribunal. This was reference No. 1 of 1955. While the proceedings in respect of the two references, which had been consolidated by the tribunal, were pending before it and had made some progress, the Government of Bihar issued a third Notification No. III/Di-1601/55- L-13028 on 17-9-1955, by which it purported to supersede the two earlier notifications, to combine the said to disputes into one dispute, to implead the two sets of workmen involved in the two said disputes together, to add the Bata Mazdoor Union to the dispute, and to refer it to the adjudication of the industrial tribunal of Mr. Ali Hassan as the sole member. The dispute thus referred to the tribunal was, "Whether the dismissal of the 60 workmen, mentioned in annexure 'B', was justified or unjustified; and to what relief, if any, those workmen are entitled - On receipt of this notification, the tribunal passed an order on 19-9-1955, cancelling the hearing of the two prior references which had been fixed for 3-10-1955, and directing that the files of the said references should be closed.
(2.) The Bata Company and its workmen then filed two separate applications before the High Court of Judicature at Patna under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution and prayed that the last notification should be quashed as being illegal and ultra vires. These two applications were numbered as M. J. C., Nos. 546 and 590 of 1955 respectively. On 4-4-1956, the High Court held that the Government of Bihar had no power or authority to supersede the earlier notifications, allowed both the applications and issued a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned notification of 17-9-1955, and also a writ in the nature of mandamus requiring the industrial tribunal to proceed expeditiously with reference-cases Nos. 10 of 1954 and 1 of 1955 and to bring them to a conclusion in accordance with law. Against the order the Government of Bihar applied for and obtained leave from this court on 26-6-1956. That is how the two present appeals have come for disposal before us.
(3.) In both the appeals, the appellant is the State of Bihar and the respondents are the Bata Company and its workmen respectively. On behalf of the appellant, it is urged before us that the High Court at Patan was in error in holding that the Government of Bihar had no power or authority to set aside the two earlier notifications and to refer the dispute in question for adjudication to the industrial tribunal under Sec. 10 (1) of the Act.;