The court clarified the interpretation of S. 19(6) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and discussed the relationship between S. 10(1) of the Act and S. 10(2) of the Standing Orders Act.

( 1 ) THE Bangalore Woollen, Cotton and Silk Mills Company, Ltd. , the petitioner herein, has filed this petition, under Art. 226 of the Constitution, praying for a writ of prohibition or any other appropriate writ or order restraining the industrial tribunal, Bangalore (to be hereinafter referred to as the tribunal), respondent 2 in this case, from proceeding with the adjudication in Industrial dispute No. 8 of 1963 on its file.

( 2 ) THE material facts of the case are as follows : The petitioner-company has a textile mill in bangalore, which manufactures cotton, silk and cotswool piecegoods. The Government of mysore by its order No. L. S. 4188-L. W. 1-55-8, dated 2 August, 1955, referred to the tribunal for adjudication the industrial dispute raised by certain categories of workmen of the petitioner-company. That reference was registered by the tribunal as I. C. No. 11 of 1955. Eventually an award was made. That award was published in the Mysore Gazette dated 18 october 1956. Paragraphs 50 to 70 of that award deal with the demands of the workman relating to privilege leave, sick leave and causal leave. The said award came into operation on 18 november 1956, as per S. 19 (3) read with S. 17a (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (to be hereinafter referred to as the Act ). On 19 September, 1958, the petitioner-company and its workmen, represented by the Binny Mills Staff Association entered into settlement under S. 12 (3) of the Act with regard to the scales of pay of certain categories of workmen. Under the said settlement, it was agreed that in return for the revision of the scales of pay, the staff association will withdraw inter alia their demand for liberalizing the privilege leave and causal leave facilities. That settlement was to be in force for a period of three years from 1 January 1958. On 7 December 1960, the petitioner-company and its workmen entered into another settlement under s. 12 (3) of the Act. The terms of that settlement are not necessary for our present purpose. On 16 november, 1961, the staff association of the workers on behalf of its members sent to the petitioner-company certain demands claiming inter alia additional privilege leave, sick leave and casual leave facilities. Direct negotiations in that connexion ended in failure. Thereafter conciliation was attempted through the conciliation officer. That also ended in failure. After that, when the workers approached the Government to refer the dispute to the tribunal, the government, by its order No. PLM 401 LLD 62, dated 10 October, 1962, refused to do so on the ground that the issue relating to leave facilities does not merit reference to adjudication as the leave facilities allowed by the petitioner-company, as compared with the leave facilities provided in similar industrial in Bangalore, cannot be considered inadequate. But, evidently at the instance of the workmen, the Government by its order No. PLM 538 LLD 62, dated 20 March, 1963, referred to the tribunal that very dispute. The reference in question was registered as I. D. No. 8 of, 1963. The petitioner-company resisted the claims of the workers on various grounds. Amongst other contentions, it was urged that the tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the tribunal framed the following four issues :

" (i) Does party 2 (the petitioner-company) prove that no dispute can be raised since the award in i. C. No. 11 of, 1955 subsists and continues to be binding on all the workmen covered by the reference ?

(ii) Does party 2 prove that the industrial tribunal has no jurisdiction to pass any award which may be inconsistent with the certified standing orders ? (iii) Does party 2 prove that by reason of the settlement dated 7 December, 1960 party 1 (the workmen) is estopped from raising demands in this case ? and (iv) Whether the categories of workmen set out in Para. 3 of the statement of demands are entitled to (a) privilege l