V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.

( 1 ) IN all these writ petitions the petitioner is BPL Group of Companies karmikara Sangh, first respondent is the State Government, respondent 2 is the Commissioner of Labour, respondent 3 is the Assistant Labour commissioner and Conciliation Officer and the 4th respondent is the management of various units of the company. The petitioner is aggrieved by the prohibition of strike by the workers of 4th respondent under Annexure-A and the order of reference at Annexure-B referring the industrial disputes raised by the petitioner-Union for adjudication. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of reference on the ground that all the points of dispute raised by it have not been referred by the government. Hence, the common prayers in all these writ petitions is to declare the impugned orders at Annexures-A and B as illegal, arbitrary and unjust, to direct the first respondent to refer all the points of dispute by issuance of a fresh order of reference and to grant interim relief under Section 10-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Karnataka amendment) Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act' ).

( 2 ) SINCE the facts are common, the parties are common except the 4th respondent, the law involved is same and the reliefs sought for are identical, all these writ petitions were heard together and disposed of by this common order.

( 3 ) THE facts leading to the present writ petitions are that the petitioner- union submitted charter of demands to the management of 4th respondent seeking better service conditions to the workmen. As the demands were not fulfilled and the managements of 4th respondent did not came forward to resolve the claims, the petitioner-Union gave a call for strike and the strike was continued demanding implementation of the demands. Various allegations are made in the writ petitions against the 4th respondent managements and they are not necessary for the disposal of these writ petitions. Ultimately, the disputes raised by the petitioner-Union were referred for adjudication by the impugned orders at Annexure-B and the strike was prohibited. In those circumstances the petitioner-Union has approached this Court seeking the reliefs referred to above.

( 4 ) MR. Anantharam, learned Counsel for the petitioner-Union submits that the Government should have referred all the points of dispute for adjudication. He submits that some of the disputes relating to lay-off, suspension, termination, justification of strike etc. , have not at all been referred for adjudication. He therefore submits that the exercise of power by the Government is in contravention of the law laid down by the supreme Court in the case of Delhi Administration v Workmen of Edward keventers and Another. In connection with the prohibition of strike, Mr. Anantharam placed reliance on the decision in Metal Box india Limited v State of Tamil Nadu , and submits that while exercising the power under Section 10 (3) of the Act, it is not mentioned that the prohibition of strike was for maintaining industrial peace and therefore the order prohibiting the strike is bad in law. The ground urged for attacking the impugned orders at Annexure-B is that the Government has not granted interim relief under Section 10-B of the Act and thereby the Government has failed to exercise the power under Section 10-B of the Act. Reliance is placed on the decision reported in AIR 1959 SC 1344 (sic), in this regard.

( 5 ) A detailed statement of objection is filed on behalf of the 4th respondent in all these writ petitions traversing various contentions and denying the allegations made against the 4th respondent and seeking to justify the impugned orders. Mr. K. Kasturi, learned Counsel for the 4th respondent, vehemently submitted that the power under Section 10-B of the Act has been properly exercised by the Government on the basis of the report submitted by the Conciliation Officer and hence, the reference made is proper. The Counsel submits that the Gover

Click Here to Read the rest of this document