K.Bhaskaran, J. - (1.) What in effect and substance, the order of reference made by the Division Bench on 20-12-1978 demands is an examination, by this Full Bench of five judges, of the correctness of the view expressed concurrently by two Full Benches of this Court (reported in Visakhapatnam District Marketing Co-operative Society Ltd. v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, (1977) 1 APLJ (HC) 160 : (1977 Lab IC 959) and Sri Brindavan Hotel v. Conciliation Officer, (1977) 2 Aplj (HC) 78 : (1977 Lab IC 1572), (hereinafter referred to respectively as the First Full Bench and the Second Full Bench) on which considerable reliance is placed by the Writ Petitioners, that the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments (Act XV) of 1966, (the Central Act XIV) of 1947 (the I.D. Act) would have no application, to a dispute, arising out of the terminations of the service of an employee in an establishment/shop, answering the description of those terms, as defined in sub-ss. (10) and (21) of S. 2 of the Shops Act not sponsored by a Union or a group of workmen.
(2.) The Writ Petitions are by the managements of certain establishment/shops; and the contesting respondents are the employees (as defined in S. 2(8) of the Shops Act) of those establishments/shops whose services had been terminated by the employers (as defined in S. 2(9) of the Shops Act). The awards granting reliefs to the said employees, passed by the Labour Court, on reference to it of the disputes, arising out of the termination of their services, by the Government under S. 10(1)(c) of the I.D. Act are under challenge in these writ petitions. The order made by the Division Bench on 20-12-1978, referring the question of law involved to a larger Bench (of five judges) is in W.P.Nos. 783, 784 and 1639 of 1977 and the other two writ petitions have been, in course of time, ordered to be posted along with the above mentioned cases, as it was considered that the same question of law arose therein also.
(3.) The First Full Bench in Para 15 (at pages 169 and 170 of APLJ) : (Para 7, at p. 964 of 1977 Lab IC) recorded the opinion : "The disputes of an individual workman in regard to termination of services, squarely fall within the filed covered by Ss. 40 and 41 of the Shops Act and we have, therefore, no doubt that there is repugnancy to that extent between the Shops Act and the I.D. Act." That Full Bench, however, did not express any opinion on the legal point that would arise if the individual dispute of a workman in an establishment/shop was supported either by the Union to which he belonged or, in the absence of a Union, by a Number of workmen, and such a matter was sought to be referred for adjudication under S. 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Second Full Bench, after having referred to the reasoning of the First Full Bench, in para 13 (at page 86 of APLJ) : (para 16, at p. 1578 of 1977 Lab IC) stated as follows : "This decision has set at rest the controversy that so far as the State of Andhra Pradesh is concerned an individual dispute or difference between an employer and an employee not espoused by the union or a number of workmen is governed by the Shops Act. They have expressed no opinion on the legal position which would arise if an individual dispute of an individual workman is espoused by the Union or in the absence of an union by a number of workmen. In this Full Bench reference we are required to consider the question on which the earlier Full Bench has expressed no opinion. In the instant case a large number of workmen have been discharged from their service by the petitioner-hotel and their case has been espoused by the Union, the second respondent. Is such a dispute, under the circumstances stated above, governed by the Industrial Disputes Act or by the Shops Act?" (Emphasis supplied) The question of law, on which the First Full Bench did not express any view, was answered by the Second Full Bench, after a fairly elaborate discussion, in the concluding para of the judgment (para 31 at page 93 of APLJ) : (para 36, at p. 1583 of 1977 Lab IC) which reads as follows : "In the result we are of the opinion that the conciliation proceedings instituted before the first respondent at the instance of 2nd respondent, do not, for the reasons stated in this judgment, suffer from want of authority on the part of the first respondent. The 2nd respondent has the right to agitate this question only under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Shops Act has no application to the instant case.";