S.K. Mal Lodha, J. - (1.) This petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution has been filed by Alcobex Metal Workers Union (for short 'the union) hereinafter through its president Shri Kirpu Ram against the State of Rajasthan (respondent No. 1) and the management of the Alcobex Metals Private Ltd. (respondent No. 2) (hereinafter referred to as'the company') seeking to quash the order (Ex. 5) dated February 18, 1980 passed by the State Government prohibiting the continuance of strike under Section 10(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act (No. XVI of 1947) (for short 'the Act' hereinafter).
(2.) The Alcobex Metal Workers Union has stated itself to be the representative Trade Union of the workmen of the company. A demand-chapter (Ex. 1) dated January 14, 1980 was submitted by the Union to the company. The company referred the matter for conciliation. The case of the petitioner is that the conciliation proceedings were taken in hot haste and no failure report was conveyed to the petitioner. It is said that the company in order to victimise the workmen, suspended about 20 of them on a plea that they were found sleeping in the night shift. Thereupon, notice (Ex. 2) dated January 26, 1980 was given to the company. After notice, neither the company nor the Union moved for conciliation in respect of the dispute raised nor the company conceded to the demand to withdraw the charge-sheet. This led the workmen to go on strike from Febuary 7, 1980. The State Government referred the dispute under Section 10(i) read with S. 12 (5) of the Act to the Industrial Tribunal, Jodhpur in respect of the matters specified therein. Subsequent to this, a notification (Ex. 5) dated February 18, 1980 was issued prohibiting the continuance of strike. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the failure report of the conciliation proceedings was not conveyed to the union, yet, hurriedly under Section 10(1) of the Act, the dispute was got referred with an ulterior motive and collateral purpose for getting an order under Section 10(3) of the Act. This was with an object to victimise the workers. The order (Ex. 5) under Section 10(.) of the Act has been challenged in Writ Petition on the ground that it was without jurisdiction mala fide and in violation of the principles of natural justice. It may be stated here that it was also stated in the Writ Petition that "discretion given under S. 10(3) of the Act is uncontrolled''and" "that it shall make the Section itself ultra vires the provisions of Art. 14 of the Constitution otherwise the order under challenge becomes contrary to Art. 14 thereof." The writ petition was filed on February 21, 1980 for quashing the order, (Ex. 5) dated February 18, 1980.
(3.) Before noticing the pleadings of the parties the events leading to their filation may briefly be recalled. On behalf of respondent No. 1 as well as the company (respondent No. 2), caveat was entered. Replies to the writ petition as well as stay application were filed on behalf of the company contesting the writ petition on various grounds on February 25, 1980. An application was moved on February 25, 1980 by the learned counsel for the petitioner for leave to urge additional grounds. This application was resisted on behalf of the company by filing reply dated February 27, 1980. A rejoinder to the reply was filed on February 28, 1980 on behalf of the petitioner. Reply to the rejoinder alongwith the letter (Ex. 6) of the Union dated December 26, 1979, the letters (Ex. 7) dated December 29, 1979, the letter (Ex. 8) dated January 7, 980, the letter (Ex. 9) dated January 9, 1980 of the Union and the letter Ex sO) dated January 10, 1980 were filed To this rejoinder, a reply was filed on behalf of the company on March 3, 1980. The writ petition was admitted after hearing the learned counsel for the parties on March 4, 1980. On that day, after admission, learned counsel for the petitioner and the company stated that so far as the petitioner and the company are concerned, pleadings are complete in all respect. Learned Deputy Government Advocate stated on that day that reply of respondent No. 1 would be filed by March 10, 1980. It was, therefore, ordered that having regard to the circumstances of the case the writ petition should be listed for hearing on March 12, 1980. On March 12, 1980, reply on behalf on ' respondent No. 1 was filed contesting the writ petition. With the reply, a copy of failure report (Anx. R. 2) dated January 24 1980, a photostat copy of entry (Anx. R. 2) in the Peon Book of the Conciliation Officer and a copy of the corrigendum (Anx. R. 3) dated March 10, 1980 were filed. An application was moved on behalf of respondent No. 1 for condoning the delay in filing the reply. As the application was not opposed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the reply filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 was taken on record. Arguments were heard in part on March 12, 1980. On March 13, 1980, learned counsel for the petitioner filed rejoinder to the reply of respondent No. 1. The rejoinder so filed was also taken on record as the learned counsel for the respondents had no objection.;