SHELAT, J. - (1.) THE following Judgment of the court was delivered by :
(2.) THIS appeal, by special leave, is against the award dated 28/09/1964 of the Industrial tribunal, Patna. The appellant company is an all India complex having establishments in different parts of the country. In Bihar alone, it has two factories, one at Jamshedpur and the other at Ranchi, and has depots at Patna and other towns. The factory at Jamshedpur is an establishment under the Bihar Shops and Establishments Act. Certain disputes having arisen between the a_appellant company and its workmen employed in the factory at Jamshedpur, the com- 553 pany and the said workmen represented by their. union called the Indoxco Labour Union, Jamshedpur, made a joint application dated 7/09/1963 to the government of Bihar for a reference under s. 10(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. By a notification dated 23/10/1963, the government referred five disputes to the tribunal for adjudication. We are concerned' in this appeal with only two disputes arising from demands Nos3 and 5. These demands were, No. 3. `The payment of overtime to office staff should be 11/2 times the ordinary rate beyond their normal duty hours.` No. 5. `Union representatives should be allowed special leave to attend to law courts for matters connected with the workers and the management, to attend to annual conventions of their federation, to attend to Executive Committee meeting of the unionfederation and convention of central organisation i.e., INTUC.` As required by r. 3 of the Industrial Disputes (Bihar) Rules, 1961, the statement accompanying the said application signed by the District Manager on behalf of the company and the General secretary of the said union representing the said workmen contamed inter alia the following information, namely, `( c ) Number of workmen employed in the undertaking affected 352 (d) Estimated number of workmen affected or likely to be affected by the dispute 352` It is quite dear from the said application and the statement signed by the parties, ( 1 ) that the said disputes concerned the 352 workmen employed in the company's factory at Jamshedpur and (2) that these 352 workmen were represented by the Indoxco Labour Union.
(3.) THE said notification also stated `Whereas the governor of Bihar is of opinion that an industrial dispute exists or is apprehended between the management of Indian Oxygen Limited .... Jamshedpur-7 and their workmen represented by Indoxco Labour Union ..... Jamshedpur, regarding the matters specified in their joint applications dated 7/9/19633 annexed hereto .... Now, therefore, in exercise of powers conferred by sub-sec. (2 ) of section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (XIV of 1947), the governor of Bihar is pleased to refer the said dispute .... .` THE notification thus makes it clear that the disputes referred to the tribunal were disputes set out in the said agreement and statement and were between the management of the appellant company's factory at Jamshedpur and their workmen represented by the Indoxco Labour Union. It appears, however, that the union at its general meeting held on 6/01/1963, purported to amend its constitution by a resolution passed thereat by changing the name of the union to Indian Oxygen Workers Union and making the workmen of all the establishments of the appellant company in Bihar eligible for its membership. Ext. C is the copy of a letter dated 21/01/1963 by which the secretary of the said union informedthe District Manager of the appellant company at Jamshedpur of the said purported amendment. The tribunal appears to be of the view that the' constitution of thesaid Indoxco Labour Union came to be amended as from 6/01/1963 and that as the said reference was made in October 1963, i.e., after the said purported amendment, `the mention in it of the dispute as a dispute between the company and Indoxco Labour Union does not materially affect the position that the dispute raised by the union is in respect of the employees of the company wherever they may be stationed. Consequently, the award in this case shall be effective in respect of all of them and cannot be restricted to the workmen working at Jamshedpur`. So far as the workmen's demands Nos. 3 and 5 were concerned, the tribunal after observing that the company's wage scales were satisfactory, compared the rates of overtime paid by other industrial concerns in Jamshedpur and awarded 1 1/4 times the ordinary wages for overtime work exceeding 39 hours but not exceeding 48 hours per week. If the overtime exceeded 48 hours per week, 48 hours of work being the maximum provided by the Bihar Shops and Establishments Act, the company would be liable to pay at double the ordinary rate of wages as provided in that Act. Regarding demand No. 5, the union produced three letters addressed to its secretary, ( 1 ) a letter by the General secretary of the Tara Workers Union, (Ext. I) dated 30/11/1963, wherein it was stated that the officials of that union were granted special leave to attend the union's executive committee meetings, the meetings of their federation and the meetings of the I.N.T.U.C. if held at Jamshedpur; (2) a letter dated 25/01/1964 by the General secretary of Golmuri Tinplate Workers Uni , Jamshedpur, to the effect that members of the executive committee of that union were relieved from duty with pay to attend meetings of the executive committee or any other meeting called by the union except mass meetings and the union's delegates were also. allowed special leave with p.ay to attend I.N.T.U.C. sessions; and (3) a letter dated 7/12/1963 by the secretary of Telco Workers Union, Jamshedpur, to the effect that members of the executive committee of that union and office bearers were allowed to attend union's meetings without loss of pay. The tribunal noted that the appellant company had been allowing without loss of pay the representatives of the workmen to attend proceedings before conciliation officers and Industrial tribunals. This concession, it considered, was sufficient and, therefore, rejected the demand for special leave with pay to attend the law courts. But it awarded that the union's representatives should be given special leave to attend (1 ) meetings of its executive commit, tee, (2) meetings of the federation of the union, (3) the annual convention of that federation when held at Jamshedpur and (4) the convention of the I.N.T.U.C.;