Sinha, J. - (1.) The facts in this case are shortly as follows: The petitioner before me is the Royal Calcutta Golf Club Mazdur Union, being a Trade-Union of the workers employed in the Royal Calcutta Golf Club, which is an institution incorporated under the Indian Companies Act with liability limited by guarantee without the addition of the word 'limited'. This institution is primarily an association of persons, who desire to play golf in Calcutta, and renders all facilities for that purpose. It is not denied that it makes available food and drink for consumption of its members, as also that it maintains a shop where members can buy their golfing equipment. Lessons are also given for which fees are charged. Between 17-11-1954 & 5/6-12-1954 the petitioner submitted a Charter of Demand of the workmen of the said club, to the Secretary of the club. The Charter of Demand inter alia contained demands for recognition of the Union, for fixing scales and classification of pay, house allowance, working hours, bonus etc. It also demanded reinstatement of some workmen who had been discharged. As the Charter of Demand was not complied with, it was referred to Government, and the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Government of West Bengal, called a joint conference of the club and its workmen on 17-12-1954. At the said joint conference the main subject for discussion was the dismissal of one Ramavatar, and suspension of Mangru Sardar, and a demand was made that Ramavatar should be forthwith reinstated and the proceedings against Man-gvu Sardar should be withdrawn. Until this was done the Union was not prepared to discuss the other disputes. As a matter of fact, it insisted that there should be a reference to adjudication straightaway with regard to the disputes regarding these two workmen. The Conciliation Officer explained that the disputes could not be considered in this piece-meal fashion, and he fixed another joint conference to be held on 28-12-1954. According to the affidavit filed by the Conciliation Officer, nobody turned up on behalf of the petitioner on 28-12-1954. On behalf of the petitioner it is stated that no intimation was given to the petitioner about the proposed joint conference on the 28th, but as a matter of fact it was on that date that a notice was given for a conference to be held on 11-1-1955. It is very difficult to determine as to the truth or otherwise of this grievance. I find however that, on 24-12-1954 a letter was written by the President of the Union to the Labour Commissioner, Government of West Bengal, a copy whereof is annexed to the affidavit of Fatik Ghose affirmed on 30-1-1956 and marked with the letter 'A'. In this letter, it is definitely stated that in view of the attitude of the Club Authorities no fruitful result would come out of the conciliation and that the conciliation proceedings had failed. It proceeds to state as follows:-- "The Union considers it fruitless to continue participation in the conciliation talk. In these circumstances, may I hope that you would kindly close conciliation talk and ask the Government for referring the dispute to an Industrial Tribunal at an early date."
(2.) Even after this, the Conciliation Officer held further joint conference, and it is not denied that the petitioner participated in it. Thus, there were joint conferences on 11-1-1955 and on 20-1-1955. On the last date, as there could not be a settlement arrived at, in the case of Mangru Sardar, the representatives of the Union left the Conference and refused to participate in it. A Conference was again fixed on 9-3-1955 which was postponed to 24-3-1955. It does not appear, however, from the affidavits as to what happened at that conference. The Conciliation Officer thereafter asked the club to submit its written comments on the Charter of Demand and the club did so on or about 7-3-1955. The Conciliation Officer carefully considered all the facts and made a report, as ho is required to do under Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act. By letter dated 16-5-1955 Mr. N. C. Moitra, Assistant Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, Labour Department, wrote to the Secretary of the Union informing him that the Government had decided not to intervene in the matter, and the reasons were given. It was stated that according to Government, the conditions of service were not considered unreasonable, and that the dismissals of certain workmen including Mangru Sardar were considered justified. This rule was issued on 2-9-1955 and in effect seeks for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to act upon the decision of Government mentioned above, and directing them to act in accordance with law, that is to say, to refer the disputes for adjudication. Mr. Guho appearing on behalf of the petitioner argues as follows: He says that upon the facts as stated above, there certainly existed a dispute, that is to say, an industrial dispute. He argues that at least the disputes with regard to Ramavatar and Mangru Sardar were considered by the Conciliation Officer himself! to be a dispute in regard to which conciliation proceedings had failed. Mr. Gulio attacks the proceedings in two ways. Firstly, he says that there being a dispute, there should have been a reference to adjudication; secondly, he says that the Conciliation Officer had duties which were judicial in nature, inasmuch as he had the duty to investigate the dispute. He says that he had failed to act in accordance with the law, because he had violated the rules of natural justice in not giving to the petitioner sufficient opportunity of putting forward its case and of meeting the case made by the club. Consequently he argues that this Officer should be made to do his duty and that the Government which has made an order based on his report has acted illegally, and it should be directed to refer the disputes for adjudication.
(3.) The relevant sections of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act') are Sections 10 and 12. Under Section 10, where the appropriate Government is of opinion that any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended, it may at any time, by order in writing refer the dispute to a Board for promoting a settlement or refer any matter appearing to be connected with or relevant to the dispute, to a Court of Enquiry or refer the dispute or any matter appearing to be connected with or relevant to the dispute to a Tribunal for adjudication. It will be observed that the duty cast on Government is qualified in two ways. Firstly, it has to arrive at an opinion that an industrial dispute exists or is apprehended, and secondly, it has been given a discretion to make an order of reference. In contrast wth such discretionary power, there are other provisions in Section 10 which are stricter e.g. where the disputes relate to a public utility service and a notice under Section 22 has been given, the appropriate Government shall, unless it considers that the notice has been frivolously and vexatiously given or that it would be inexpedient so to do, make a reference notwithstanding that any other proceeding under the Act in respect of the dispute may have commenced. It will here be seen, that the Government has power to go into the question as to whether the notice given under Section 22 has been frivolously or vexatious given and further to consider whether it would be inexpedient to make a reference or not. If Government comes to a conclusion which is favourable to the workman, then, of course, it must refer the matter. Where, however, both parties to the industrial dispute apply in the prescribed manner, whether jointly or separately, for a reference to either a Board, Court or a Tribunal, and the appropriate Government is satisfied that the persons applying represent the majority of each party, then it shall make the reference accordingly. Here the only duty cast on Government is to be satisfied that the persons applying represent the majority of each party. If Government is so satisfied, then it is bound to refer the matter. Coming to Section 12 of tile Act, 1 find that it deals with the cases where there is or might be, a conciliation by a Conciliation Officer. It provides that where an industrial dispute exists or is apprehended, the Conciliation Officer may, or where the dispute relates to public utility service and a notice under Section 22 has been given, shall, hold conciliation proceedings in a prescribed manner. Sub-sections 2, 4 and 5 are important and must be set out: "Section 12 (2) The conciliation officer shall, for the purpose of bringing about a settlement of the dispute without delay investigate the dispute and all matters affecting the merits and the right settlement thereof and may do all such things as he thinks fit for the purpose of inducing the parties to come to a fair and amicable settlement of the dispute. (4) If no such settlement is arrived at, the conciliation officer shall, as soon as practicable after the close of the investigation, send to the appropriate Government a full report setting forth the steps taken by him for ascertaining the facts and circumstances relating to the dispute and for bringing about a settlement thereof, together with a full statement of such facts and circumstances, and the reasons on account of which, in his opinion, a settlement could not be arrived at. (5) If, on a consideration of the report referred to in sub-section (4), the appropriate Government is satisfied that there is a case for reference to a Board or Tribunal, it may make such reference. Where the appropriate Government does not make such a reference it shall record and communicate to the parties concerned its reasons therefor.";