A reference under section 36a of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, can only be made if the Government has doubts or difficulties with regard to the interpretation of an award. The reference must be limited to the interpretation of the award and cannot include issues related to the implementation of the award.

1. THE petitioner No. 2 is Messrs. Mcleod and Co., Ltd., which is the Managing Agents for the petitioner No. 1, the Britannia Engineering Co. Ltd. The respondent No. 3, Jnanendra Nath Chatterjee, was employed as stenographer at the head office of Messrs. Mcleod and Co., Ltd. In January 1940, he was transferred to Britannia Engineering Works at Titaghur and subsequently in 1943 he was given a fresh appointment letter by the Britannia Engineering Co.

2. AFTER the enactment of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947, the Government of West Bengal set up some Omnibus Tribunals, popularly known as the Engineering Tribunal (1947) and the Mercantile Tribunal etc. (1948). The former dealt with the disputes in the Engineering Industry while the latter dealt with disputes in Commercial and Mercantile Establishments which were members of the Bengal Chamber of Commerce. The respondent No. 3 seems to have accepted his emoluments in terms of the award of the Engineering Tribunal. While working at the head office, the respondent No. 3 became a member of the Provident Fund and he was allowed to continue to be a member of that Fund even after his transfer. Thereafter, disputes and differences arose between the petitioner companies and respondent No. 3 as represented by respondent No. 4 and the matter was referred to the Second Industrial Tribunal for adjudication.

The Issues that were referred were as follows:- (1) Is Shri Jnanendra Nath Chatterjee a member of the Head Office Staff? (2) Is he entitled to the increased emoluments awarded by the Mercantile Tribunal? (3) Is he entitled to be a member of the Provident Fund (for Indian and uncovenanted Staff) of the Head Office of M/s. Mcleod and Co., at 3, Nataji Subhas Road, Calcutta-1?

3. THE Tribunal held in favour of Chatterjee on the first issue. He was declared to be entitled to the benefits receivable by the staff at the head office. Issue No. 2 was held against him. In other words, it was held that he was entitled to the benefits under the award of the Engineering Tribunal and not the Mercantile Tribunal. Issue No. 3 was also decided in his favour. In other words, he was held to be entitled to be a member of the Provident Fund of the Head Office of Messrs. Mcleod and Co.

4. AGAINST this award there was an appeal to the Labour Appellate Tribunal. So far as Issues 1 and 3 are concerned, they were upheld, but the finding of the Tribunal on Issue No. 2 was reversed. The Labour Appellate Tribunal held that with effect from the 13th October, 1955, respondent No. 3 should be paid increased emoluments on the basis of the Mercantile Tribunal Award and arrears should be paid within one month from the date of the decision. Respondent No. 3 thereafter made an application to this Court under Art. 227, which was dismissed.

It appears that thereafter the parties were not ad idem on various questions that arose and Government was approached. On September 1, 1958, Government purported to make an order of reference under section 36a of the Industrial Disputes Act. The preamble to the order recites that in the opinion of the Governor, difficulties had arisen with regard to certain questions as to the interpretation of the award of the Second Industrial Tribunal as modified by the decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal. The questions that were referred were as follows: (1) Whether any amount in respect of arrears in wages etc., as per the said award of the Tribunal as modified by the said decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal is due to the employee? (2) Whether the splitting up of his wages in the manner effected by the company is proper and justified ? (3) To what relief is he entitled?

5. IT is against this order that this application is directed. The complaint is that this order of reference is not in accordance with the provisions of sec. 36a. The relevant part of sec. 36a runs as follows:-

"36-A. Power to remove Difficulties: (1) If, in the opinion of the appropriate Government, any difficulty or dou