B.N.BANERJEE, J. - (1.) THE short point that arises for consideration in this Rule is whether the award of an Industrial Tribunal as to scales of pay was terminated by the workmen, in the manner prescribed in Section 19(6) of the industrial Disputes Act.
(2.) IT is not disputed that the working conditions, scales of pay and dearness allowance of workmen in printing presses became the subject -matter of certain awards, more or less on industrywise basis, during the last several years. Once such an award between 169 printing presses in Calcutta and Howrah (including the respondent No. 1 press) and their workmen was published in the Calcutta Gazette, dated May 11, 1948. Another such award between 90 printing presses (including respondent No. 1 press) and their workmen was published in the Calcutta Gazette, dated March 1, 1951. The dispute, out of which this Rule arises, is the third of the series of industrial disputes between respondent No. 1 press and its workmen. The State Government referred the dispute, limited to the following issues, to the Fourth Industrial Tribunal for adjudication, namely: (a) States of pay and clearness allowance. (b) Whether the termination of employment of thefollowing workmen is justified? To what relief, if any, they are entitled? (i) Shri Gobardhan Banerjee (ii) Shri Pataki Charan Karmakar. The Tribunal, inter alia, held: (a) that there could be no fresh adjudication on the question of scale of pay, because In the absence of termination, the previous award on this question was binding on the parties; (b) that in course of conciliation proceedings, preceding the reference, respondent No. 1 increased the dearness allowance from Rs. 28/ - to Rs. 30/ -per month and that was a fair and appropriate increase in dearness allowance; (c) that Gobardhan Banerjee having been re -instated during the pendency of the dispute, nothing further was required to be done in that matter; (d) that there was no reason to interfere with the action of the management in retrenching Shri Pataki Charan Karmakar; and made the award accordingly.
(3.) THE petitioner moved this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution, against the award and obtained the present Rule.;