JUDGMENT

KRISHNA IYER, J. :—There is a tragic touch in processual protraction as this little lis lasting a whole decade pathetically illustrates. Such lingering legal machinery is by-pass by both sides in practice largely because, by sheer slow motion, it denies relief when needed and drives parties to seek remedies by direct action or political intervention. What elegant alibi can there be for the routine charter of demands put forward in the middle of 1966, ripening into an industrial reference in November 1966 after a flare-up of illegal strike and failure of conciliation, taking around 3 years for rendering a short award and a little over five years for reviewing it in this Court? Law-makers whose vocal concern for industrial peace and constitutional promises for the working class is being put to the test by failure in the field will, we hope, alert themselves. Labour litigation can be a curse or dread where one side is weak, as here, and has not been able to hire legal services but has been made good by amicus curiae, and the other side, regardless of cost, is anxious to settle some principle, as counsel for the appellant impressed on us. We now move into the area of facts which wears a jural apparel.

2. The narrative of necessary facts starts naturally with a bonus dispute in the Statement Ltd. (a newspaper with editions published in Calcutta and Delhi) which was referred to adjudication in September 1966 and was, admittedly, pending at a time when the Calcutta workers reportedly resorted to rude tactics to press and earlier charter of demands presented to the management. On September 20, 1966, events reached a crescendo of illegal and disorderly strike at mid-day with a reprisal of lock-out at mid-night so soon as the administrative officer, with police assistance, gained his freedom. Even in human affairs a storm is followed by clam, may be. For the two Unions, sobered, perhaps by this sudden action of the management, wrote the very next day (21st September) to the employer requesting for lifting the lock-out, proffering peaceful resumption of work and requiring at least an interim relief on the economic demands. The letter speaks for itself and may be read presently. The employer was not ready to accept this assurance. The lock-out dragged on, despite the seeming offer of the olive branch by Labour.

3. Mistrust on both sides is inevitable when estrangement vitiates relations and language is suspect when bitterness is the rule of interpretation. Right or wrong, the management took the view that the offer of good behaviour by the workers was conditional and not convincing, so that the lock-out was not lifted for several days. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour, who had interceded to conciliate, had unavailingly requested the Management to lift the lock-out and had found Labour insisting on some interim economic relief as a ground for withdrawal of the strike. At certain stages of conflict in this world, 760 face-saving becomes more important than heart-searching. Life is not logic and prestige amends propriety.

4. The cold-war correspondence continued for a little while more, each blaming the other, till at last the State, on November 4, 1966, referred six points of dispute to the Fifth Industrial Tribunal, Calcutta, before whom the bonus dispute was already pending. Better sense on both sides resulted in the termination of the strike and the closure, and work was resumed from November 8, 1966. The award that followed upon the dispute was rendered on September 2, 1969 nearly three years after the reference of the dispute.

5. One is led to wonder why there should have been so much delay, but the blame, if any, has to be shared between the State government and the Tribunal. For, after the Fifth Tribunal started the enquiry and examined a few witnesses, the State Government ordered transfer of the industrial dispute to another Tribunal and, not surprisingly, omitted to communicate promptly the factum of such transfer to the