- (1.) THIS is an application by the Maharaja Shri Umaid Mills Ltd. , Pali (Marwar) under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and arises in the following circumstances.
(2.) ON 7th July, 1953, the Government of Rajasthan acting under Section 10 of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred certain industrial disputes between the petitioner and its workmen represented by the Textile Labour Union (Red Flag) Pali for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal Rajasthan, Jaipur, by two notifications of the Labour Department dated 7-7-53. Copies of both these notifications are on the record and have been marked as Exs. A and B. The Industrial Tribunal started proceedings in both these references. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal, both the parties came to a mutual settlement of the outstanding disputes between them. On 22-2-55 both the parties jointly filed an application before the Industrial Tribunal and also produced a memorandum of settlement arrived at between them. Both of them prayed for an award in terms of the said settlement. Thereupon, the Industrial tribunal gave an award in terms of the settlement between the parties on the same day, i. e. , 22-2-55. This award was published in the Rajasthan Rajpatra dated 26-2-55. Its copy is also on the record and has been marked as Ex. C. On 15-6-56 the government of Rajasthan acting under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act again referred certain industrial disputes between the petitioner and the non-petitioner No. 1 to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. On 31-7-56 the government of Rajasthan issued another notification amending its first notification dated 15-6-56, thereby the dispute relating to bonus for 1954 was excluded from the reference. To this extent the facts are admitted by both the parties.
(3.) IT has been pointed out by the petitioner that according to the settlement which was arrived at between the petitioner and the non-petitioner No. 1 on 22-2-55 and which merged in the award of the Industrial Tribunal of the same date, the award was to come into force from 1st January, 1955 and was to remain in operation for a period of at least one year, i. e. , up to 31st December, 1955 and also for a further period thereafter until it was terminated according to law. The petitioner's contention is that this award was not terminated by non-petitioner No. 1 in accordance with the provisions of law as contained in Section 19 (6) of the industrial Disputes Act of 1947 (which will hereafter be referred as the 'act' ). It has been urged that according to Section 19 (6) of the Act the non-petitioner no. 1 ought to have given to the petitioner a notice intimating its intention to terminate the award, that the award could come to an end after the expiry of a period of 2 months from the date on which the notice was given and then only an industrial dispute could arise between the parties. According to the petitioner so long as the award was in force no industrial dispute could be said to have arisen between the parties and the Government could not make a valid reference to the industrial Tribunal. It has been stated by the petitioner that a representation was made to the government on 27-7-56 protesting against the aforesaid reference, dated 15-656, but the Government did not care to reply to the petitioner's representation. Thereafter, the petitioner raised a preliminary objection before the Industrial tribunal on the ground that the Government was incompetent to refer the matters mentioned in its notification dated 15-6-56 as industrial disputes. The petitioner also challenged the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal to entertain and decide the matters referred to it by an invalid reference. On 12-1-57, the learned Judge of the Industrial Tribunal decided the preliminary objection against the petitioner. The petitioner has filed a copy of the Industrial Tribunal's order dated 12-1-57 and it is marked as Ex. T. It appears from Ex. J that the learned Judge has decided 5 issues thereby. In the original application filed by the petitioner the validity of the whole of this order was challenged, but at the time of arguments the petitioner's learned counsel abandoned his objections relating to other matters and confined his arguments only about the matter relating to dearness allowance. It may be mentioned here that in the notification dated 15-6-56 one of the disputes referred to the Industrial Tribunal was as follows:. . (VERNACULAR MATTER OMMITED ). . The petitioner's contention before the Industrial Tribunal was that this dispute between the parties was already decided by the award dated 22-2-55 and since it was not terminated according to law there was no industrial dispute between the parties on this matter and it could not be made a subject of valid reference. Learned Judge of the Industrial Tribunal dismissed this objection with the following remarks: "in so far as demand No. 2 for Dearness Allowance is concerned I may only state briefly that the question of such an allowance cannot be treated as settled for all time under the award because by its very nature it is dependent on the cost of living index and so many other factors which are subject to change. Moreover it was emphasized in the memorandum of settlement which was the basis of the award that the settlement was confined to disputes that existed or might arise in any manner in the working of the Mills up to 31-12-54. The settlement or the award cannot therefore stand in the way of an adjudication as to the future rate of dearness allowance. " Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the petitioner never meant to contend before the tribunal that a dispute about dearness allowance could never arise between the parties in future. What was really stressed was, that so long as the award on the question of dearness allowance was in force, the government could not refer the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal, that the Tribunal could have no jurisdiction to decide an industrial dispute which had never arisen and this argument was not appreciated by the learned Judge. It has been vehemently urged that since the" non-petitioner No. 1 did not give any notice to the petitioner to terminate the award according to Section 19 (6) of the Act, the award on the question of dearness allowance was still in force, that no industrial dispute could therefore be said to have arisen with respect to it, that the Industrial tribunal had therefore no jurisdiction to entertain and decide this matter and so its proceedings so far as they relate to this matter should be quashed and it should be prohibited from proceeding with the adjudication of this matter. It may be again clarified here that the learned counsel for the petitioner has abandoned his objections about other disputes referred by the Government notification dated 15-6-56 (Ex. F) and therefore we need not go into them. ;