Judgment

VAIDIALINGAM, J. :- This appeal, on certificate, by the State of Maharashtra is directed against the judgment and order of the Bombay High Court dated March 15, 1967, in Special Civil Application No. 1067 of l964, quashing the order of the State Government dated January 18, 1864, making a reference to the Industrial Tribunal :

2. At the outset, it must be stated that the workman who filed the Writ Petition in the High Court and got an order in their favour, have not appeared before us to support the order of the High Court. On behalf of the management which was a party before the Tribunal and before the High Court, it has been represented that it is no longer interested in these proceedings.

3. It is necessary to state a few facts leading upto the filing of the writ petition in the High Court. On December 19, 1962, the State Government referred certain disputes for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal. The matters in disputes included various items; but it is only necessary to refer to dispute No. 3 which related to the Production bonus. That dispute relating to Production bonus in Part I for Daily Rated workmen was as follows :-

"3. Production Bonus.

The present incentive scheme should be revised as under :-

(a) The scheme should be made applicable to all the departments of the company.

(b) When the production in the establishment reaches 500 tons in a month all the daily rated workers should get 10 per cent of their total earnings as production bonus. The number of workmen being the average number employed in the year 1960.

(c) For every 10 tons increase in a month s production above 800 tons a 2% increase in the percentage should be given over and above that in clause (b) above.

(d) The existing bye-laws and clauses regarding the absenteeism etc. should be abolished.

(e) Bonus should be determined by the ratio of days filled in by a worker to the number of working days in a month.

(f) The above benefits should be paid with retrospective effect from 1st July, 1961.

4. In part II for Monthly Rated employees, the dispute regarding Production Bonus was as follows:-

"3. Production Bonus.

(i) Monthly rated employees connected directly with production should be paid production bonus at the same rate paid to daily rated workmen.

(ii) 60% of the average production bonus paid to the employees directly connected with production, should be paid as production bonus to all other monthly rated employees. Production bonus for all monthly rated employees should be paid with retrospective effect from 1st July, 1961."

5. When the adjudication on that reference was pending, the State Government on January 18, 1964, made another reference to the same Tribunal as follows :

"Should the existing Incentive Scheme of Production Bonus be replaced by the new Incentive Scheme evolved by Messrs. Ibcon Private Limited in their report dated October 1963 as desired by the Management ?"

6. In this order of reference, it was stated that a previous reference had al ready been made on December 19, 1962 regarding the revision of the production bonus scheme for the workmen of the company. It is further stated that the company made a representation to the State Government that the terms of reference already made should be supplemented so as to include the above question also. The State Government has also stated in the said order that it is of the opinion that the matter on which a further reference is asked for by the employer is "connected with or relevant to the said dispute." The reference to the "said dispute" is regarding the revision of production bonus which was already the subject of the reference dated December 19, 1962.

7. The Tribunal appears to have passed an award on February 27, 1964, en all the disputes comprised in the 1st Reference excepting demand No. 3, which, as we have already stated, relates to the revision of the existing production bonus scheme. The union filed an application before the Tribunal, stating that the second reference dated January 1