Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1K views

    State of Bom Case

    Uploaded by

    Youssef Hazem
    The Supreme Court examined whether the government was justified in refusing to refer an industrial dispute for adjudication under Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. There was a dispute between a company and its workers over bonus payments. The conciliation proceedings failed and the government refused to refer the dispute, citing misconduct of the workers. However, the company had voluntarily paid workers bonus even during a go-slow period. The Court found the government's reasons for refusal to be extraneous and unrelated to the dispute. It upheld the High Court's ruling directing the government to refer the dispute through a writ of mandamus.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    State of Bom Case

    Uploaded by

    Youssef Hazem
    1K views12 pages
    The Supreme Court examined whether the government was justified in refusing to refer an industrial dispute for adjudication under Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. There was a dispute between a company and its workers over bonus payments. The conciliation proceedings failed and the government refused to refer the dispute, citing misconduct of the workers. However, the company had voluntarily paid workers bonus even during a go-slow period. The Court found the government's reasons for refusal to be extraneous and unrelated to the dispute. It upheld the High Court's ruling directing the government to refer the dispute through a writ of mandamus.

    Original Description:

    Presentation

    Original Title

    state of bom case

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court examined whether the government was justified in refusing to refer an industrial dispute for adjudication under Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. There was a dispute between a company and its workers over bonus payments. The conciliation proceedings failed and the government refused to refer the dispute, citing misconduct of the workers. However, the company had voluntarily paid workers bonus even during a go-slow period. The Court found the government's reasons for refusal to be extraneous and unrelated to the dispute. It upheld the High Court's ruling directing the government to refer the dispute through a writ of mandamus.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    1K views12 pages

    State of Bom Case

    Uploaded by

    Youssef Hazem
    The Supreme Court examined whether the government was justified in refusing to refer an industrial dispute for adjudication under Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. There was a dispute between a company and its workers over bonus payments. The conciliation proceedings failed and the government refused to refer the dispute, citing misconduct of the workers. However, the company had voluntarily paid workers bonus even during a go-slow period. The Court found the government's reasons for refusal to be extraneous and unrelated to the dispute. It upheld the High Court's ruling directing the government to refer the dispute through a writ of mandamus.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 12

    STATE OF

    BOMBAY
    v.
    K.P.KRISHNAN
    SANISHA GOEL
    � When the reasons given by the government
    for refusing to make a reference are
    extraneous and not germane, then the court
    can issue a writ of mandamus directing the
    government to make a reference under Sec
    10(1) read with section 12(5).
    FACTS SUMMARY
    � There was a dispute between the
    Firestone Tyre & rubber Co. and its
    workmen.
    � The conciliation proceedings proved
    infructuous.
    � On receipt of the failure report of the
    conciliation officer the government of
    Bombay considered the matter and
    decided not to refer it to an industrial
    dispute for adjudication.
    � Thegovernment communicated the
    decision to the respondents u/s 12(5), I.D.
    Act.

    � The respondents filed a petition in the HC


    for the issuance of a writ against the
    government calling upon it to refer the
    said dispute for industrial adjudication
    under Section 10(1)and section 12 (5).
    � The HC held that Sec 12(5) imposed an
    obligation on the appellant to refer the
    dispute provided it was satisfied that a case
    for reference has been made.

    � In the present case, it was held that the


    reason given by the appellant for refusing to
    make a reference was so extraneous and
    that the respondents were entitled to a writ of
    mandamus against the appellant.
    ISSUE
    � Thepetition was filed in the High Court for
    the issuance of a writ against the
    government calling upon it to refer the
    said dispute for industrial adjudication
    under section 10(1) and section 12(5).
    OBSERVATION AND DECISION
    �  The supreme court looked at section 12 (5)

    �  Section 12(5) in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947


    �  (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, 2 Labour Court, Tribunal or National
    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.
    � The SC observed a demarcation between
    section 12(5) and section 10(1). When section
    12(5) provides that the government may
    make such a reference, it means it may
    make such a reference under section 10(1).
    As 12(5) is in a chapter dealing with
    procedures, powers and duties of the
    authorities under the act.

    �  The court also pointed out that section 13(4)


    further reaffirms that the power to make a
    reference in regard to disputes referred to the
    board are to be found in sec 10(1).
    � Itwas observed that if the Government
    comes to the conclusion that a prima
    facie case for reference has been made
    then it would be open to it to also
    consider if there are any other relevant or
    material facts justifying its refusal to make
    a reference. The report by the conciliation
    officer does not have to be the sole basis.

    � Ifthe court is satisfied that the reasons


    given by the government are irrelevant or
    are unrelated to the issue it can issue a
    writ of mandamus even in respect of such
    an administrative order.
    � The court recognized that even though
    considerations of practicality cannot be
    ruled out, it wouldn't allow the
    Government to introduce irrelevant or
    extraneous considerations under the
    pretense of expediency.

    �  The Government, however, can enquire if


    the dispute brings up a claim which is old
    or which is against the provisions of the
    act or doesn’t align with any agreements
    made between the parties.
    �  The Government, however, cannot be
    within its legitimate power in saying that it
    doesn't approve of the political
    affiliations, behaviors, manner or
    appearance of the secretary of the
    union. Such considerations must be
    wholly excluded.

    �  In the present case, the dispute wasn’t


    solely on the grounds of misconduct of
    the respondents as it is of importance
    that they were paid three months bonus
    voluntarily by the company even though
    the workers had adopted go-slow tactics
    �  The employees are entitled to claim
    bonus based on profits seeing that they
    contributed to the making of said profits.

    �  Therefore, SC ruled that the High Court


    did not make a mistake by holding that
    the impugned decision of the
    government is wholly punitive in nature
    and must be seen as being based on
    extraneous considerations.
    The SC found this to be a fit case for writ
    of mandamus.

    You might also like