- (1.) THE petitioner M/s. Kedarnath Purusattamdas and Co. (P) Ltd. challenged the validity and legality of the order dated 29th July, 1969 passed by the respondent No. 1, the Authority Under the Payment of Wages Act, West Bengal in P. W. A. Case No. 230 of 1966 holding that work was denied to the workmen intentionally as there was no lay-off as held by the Industrial Tribunal and directing the petitioner company to pay the unpaid wages of the workmen during the period they were not provided with any work and also prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to forbear from giving effect to the impugned order as well as a writ of certiorari for quashing the same.
(2.) THE petitioner which is a private limited company constituted under the Indian Companies Act is a manufacturer of steel condute pipes and steel furniture etc. For this manufacturing purposes the petitioner employed some workmen, at its factory at Howrah. These workmen sometime in January, 1964, through their union, Kedarnath Purusattamdas and Co. (P) Ltd. Workers' Union submitted a charter of demands to the petitioner and in order to realise their demands the workers adopted go-slow tactics, absentism and other illegal activities. In the last week of January, 1964, the permanent workmen went on a strike. There was an amicable settlement on 10th of February, 1964 whereby it was provided that the workmen would ensure increased production and the charter of demands submitted by the workmen would be taken up for conciliation after assumption of normal work. It was also agreed upon between the parties that the workmen would be given 10 days' notice-time to resume their duties. In spite of the said agreement a number of workmen refused to join their duties at the schedule time and a dispute was raised on the alleged ground of non-employment of a number of workmen. The said dispute was settled by a tripartite agreement on March 26, 1964. But in spite of these agreements the workmen continued go-slow tactics and indulged in acts of indiscipline and hunger-strike. As a result there was not only fall in production but urgent defense orders could not be executed. It has been stated that the petitioner company issued notices dated 8th April, 1964 and 10th April, 1964 requesting the workmen to give up go-slow tactics and other acts of indiscipline otherwise it would not be possible for the management to run the factory. The said request, however, was of no effect and the petitioner had to declare lay-off until further notice by a notice dated 11th April, 1964 from 12th April, 1964.
(3.) THERE was, however, an amicable settlement between the company and its workers through their union and it was agreed that the lay-off would be lifted on and from August 20, 1964 and the factory would be reopened on August 20, 1964. The petitioner issued individual notices dated August 27, 1964 to its employees including the respondent workmen directing them to resume their duties worth with. It was also mentioned in the said notices that if they would fail to resume their duties it would be presumed that they had no intention to work and their names would be struck off from the company's roll. The respondent workmen, however, did not turn up and report for duties and so their names were struck off from the rolls. The workmen raised an Industrial Dispute in connection with the lay-off and the said dispute was referred by the Government to the 5th Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal for adjudication by Order dated June 25, 1964. The question referred to the Tribunal for decision was :- "whether the lay-off of workmen from 12. 4. 64 was justified ? To what relief, if any, were the workmen entitled ?";