1. An Industrial Tribunal constituted under Section 7(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate upon a dispute unless the Government makes a specific reference of the dispute to the Tribunal under Section 10(1)(c). 2. The provisions of Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, as amended by Act 43 of 1953, which provide for the re-employment of retrenched workmen in certain circumstances, came into force only on October 24, 1953, and cannot be applied to disputes that arose before this date.

Judgment

MUDHOLKAR, J.: This is an appeal by a certificate from the summary dismissal by the Bombay High Court of a writ petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The relevant facts are these :

2. Rai Sahab Ramdayal Ghasiram Oil Mills (hereinafter referred to as the Mills) were closed on September 1, 1952 on the ground that they had sustained heavy losses. The closure was found to be bona fide and the workmen were awarded retrenchment benefit. The Mills, however, reopened on November 14, 1954, though their operations were carried on a reduced scale for avoiding further losses. Some of the retrenched workmen were re-employed by the Mills but evidently at lower wages than before. It was said on behalf of the Mills that all the former workmen could not be absorbed but it would appear that they had in fact employed some new hands as well. An industrial dispute having been raised by the respondent-union because of the non-absorption of 11 workmen, the State Government constituted an Industrial Tribunal consisting of Mr. Kurian, under S. 7 of the Industrial Dispute Act, as it stood on that date, on May 13, 1955 and referred the following dispute to him :

"Whether the retrenched workmen referred to in the Annexures A, B and C of the Award of the Industrial Tribunal, in the Industrial dispute between the workmen and employers of Rai Sahib Ramdayal Ghasiram Rice, Ginning and Oil Mills, Peddapally dated 1st January 1953 are entitled for reinstatement and compensation for unemployment after reopening of the said Mills."

3. It may be mentioned that shortly after the Tribunal was constituted and reference made to it, Mr. Kurian retired in consequence of which the Government of Hyderabad made the following notification on June 2, 1955 :

"In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sec. (1) of S. 7 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (XIV of 1947) and in supersession of the Labour Department Notification No. B 189 54/134 dated 15-10-1954 the Rajapramukh here by constitutes an Industrial Tribunal consisting of Shri Bhikaji Patil as its sole member for the adjudication of industrial disputes in accordance with the provisions of the said Act, with immediate effect."

4. The respondent case before the Tribunal was that after the reopening of the Mills all the former employees were entitled to be given preference over others and were also entitled to re-employment on the same wages as obtained at the date of closure. This claim was based upon the award made by the Industrial Tribunal on January 1, 1953 in the dispute which arose between the Mills and the respondents in consequence of the closure of the Mills in September 1952. Para 24, Cl. 6 of the Award on the basis of which this claim was made by the Union runs thus :

"In the event of the factory being reopened within one year from the date of award becomes enforceable the employers will give first preference to those workmen in Annexures A, B, and C, that is, no workman will be employed in the factory other than those employed at present without giving them first opportunity for employment and that on terms as to basic wage and allowances that were in force on 29th July, 1952."

5. The grievance of the respondents was that only a few of the former workers were re-employed and that too at lower wages and some new hands had been recruited disregarding the claim of some former employees. They also claimed the benefit of the provisions of S. 25(H) of the Industrial Dispute Act which were added to the Act by the Industrial Dispute (Amendment) Act, 1953.

6. Several contentions were raised by the appellant before the Tribunal but we need only refer to those which are now urged before us. One contention was that the Tribunal as it stood constituted on June 2, 1955 had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute and the other was that the provisions of S. 25(H) of the Industrial Dispute Act as amended by Act 43 of 1953 were not available to the former workmen who had been retrenched. The first cont