A.P.Srivastava, J. - (1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) Seven prayers have been made in it but the petition is pressed only with respect to the last-mentioned prayer. It is, therefore, not necessary to state the facts in detail so far as they relate to the other prayers. The last prayer for which the petition is pressed is that an order, direction or writ be issued requiring the opposite party 1 to decide issues 2 and 3 as preliminary issues.
(3.) In order to appreciate the facts leading up to the abovementioned prayer it would be sufficient if it is mentioned that the petitioner is a limited company which employs a large number of persons. In respect of the bonus payable to its employees for the calendar year 1959 an agreement was arrived at between the company and the workers and was implemented by the Government. Then a dispute was raised about the bonus payable to the workers for the financial year 1959-60 and that dispute had been referred by the Government under notification No. 378(LC)/-XVIII-LA-75(MRS)/-1960 dated 12 May 1961, to the industrial tribunal (III), Allahabad, which has been impleaded in the petition as respondent 1. The matter in dispute referred to is: Should the employers be required to pay bonus to their workmen for the year 1959-60? If so, at what rate and with what other details? After the dispute was taken up by the respondent 1 written statements were filed by the petitioner as well as the workmen. One of the points raised by the petitioner was that so far as the year 1959 was concerned the bonus had already been paid in accordance with a compromise which had been implemented by the Government and there was, therefore, no dispute left which could be referred to the tribunal. It was also contended that on that account the tribunal had no jurisdiction to go into that aspect of the matter. The workmen on the other hand contended that the compromise on the basis of which bonus had been paid for the calendar year 1959 related only to the customary bonus and did not relate to the profit bonus. They said that the question of profit bonus had never been decided earlier by compromise and there was a dispute about it which had been rightly referred to the Industrial tribunal. Among the other issues framed by the tribunal there was one as to whether the dispute pending before the tribunal was an Industrial dispute or not. At the instance of the petitioner two additional issues were framed which read: 2. Whether there is no dispute, much less an industrial dispute, regarding bonus for the year 1959, on account of the memorandum of settlement dated 10 March 1959, enforced by the Uttar Pradesh Government through notification No. 2300 (ST)/XXXVIA 718 (ST)/59, dated 28 March 1959? 3. Whether there is likewise no dispute in relation to three months (January to March) of 1930 in view of bonus having already been paid and accepted by the workmen under notice No. 11 dated 12 January 1961?;