- (1.) This is a petition by Messrs R.S. Sewing Machine Company, Bassi Pathana, under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the order dated 17th January, 1961 passed by the Labour Court, Rohtak respondent No. 2. By Notification dated 13th August, 1960, the Governor of the Punjab referred the following disputes between the petitioner-Company and its workmen for adjudication to respondent No. 2 :- 1. Whether the termination of services of Servshri Tek Chand Sharma and Lajya Ram is justified and in order If not, to what relief they are entitled 2. Whether the workmen be granted bonus for the year 1959-60 (ending 31st March, 1960) If, so, what should be the quantum of bonus and the terms and conditions of its payment to the workmen 3. Whether the workmen be paid for the closed days declared by the Management of their own volition such as Vishwakarma Day, marriage of the relatives of management etc. If so, with what details
(2.) When the parties appeared before the Labour Court the Management raised an objection with regard to the jurisdiction of the Court to try these disputes as a result of which, the following preliminary issue was framed by respondent No. 2 :- "Whether the disputes to which the present reference relates are industrial disputes - The contention of the Company was that since the disputes that had been referred to respondent No. 2 by the Government were not espoused by a substantial section of their establishment, therefore, these were no industrial disputes within the purview of the Industrial Disputes Act, and, as such the Labour Court was not competent to adjudicate upon them. By the impugned order, respondent No. 2 decided this preliminary issue against theCompany. That led to the filing of the present petition on 23rd May, 1961.
(3.) The sole point for consideration in the present case is whether the disputes referred to by the Government to the Labour Court are industrial disputes. It is common ground that if these are espoused by a substantial number of workmen of the management, then they would be industrial disputes otherwise not. The Labour Court has found that the total establishment of the petitioner-Company consists of 40 or 41 workmen. Out of them 17, or in any case 15 workmen, had all along espoused and were still espousing the cause of the dismissed workmen. This according to respondent No. 2, constituted a substantial section of the petitioner's establishment and, therefore, the disputes were industrial disputes.;