ORDER :- In this writ petition, Mr. M. M. Abdulkhader, learned counsel for the petitioner, challenges the arbitration award passed by Sri V. U. Joseph, Industrial Tribunal, Kozhikode, to whom the dispute was referred by agreement of parties under section 10A of the Industrial Disputes Act. There is no controversy that the procedure and the various formalities indicated under section 10A of the Act were amply complied with and ultimately the State Government has published the award under section 17 of the Act.

2. The petitioner, Union, challenges the arbitration award on the ground that the decision rendered by the arbitrator on the two main questions that were referred to him for adjudication is erroneous and illegal.

3. The question that was referred to the arbitration of Mr. V. U. Joseph related to the claim of the piece-rated workers for additional bonus for the year ending 31-12-1959 to be paid on the total wages that they were getting at the material time. The claim also related to bonus for the same period regarding the temporary workers. The actual question that was referred for the opinion of the arbitrator and as extracted in the arbitration award is as follows :

"The managements contention that the workers were not entitled to any additional bonus for the year ending 31-12-1959 according to the existing practice followed by the management hitherto as against the workers contention that the existing practice is not correct and that the piece-rated and temporary workers were also entitled to the same rate of bonus as the permanent time-rated workers."

4. I will have to consider later the merits of the attack levelled against this award. But at this stage, it is enough to note that both the claims that were urged before the arbitrator, on behalf of the Union were negatived. The opinion of the arbitrator ultimately is that the existing practice adopted by the management of paying bonus based on basic wages is perfectly correct and that the temporary workers are not entitled to any bonus as claimed by them. That means, on the questions which were referred for adjudication by the arbitrator concerned, the opinion given by the arbitrator is against the union.

5. It is this arbitration award dated 21-4-1961 and published in the State Gazette on 23rd May 1961 that is attacked by Mr. Abdulkhader, learned counsel for the petitioner.

6. On behalf of the management, the first respondent, Mr. V. K. K. Menon, learned counsel, has taken a preliminary objection to the maintainability of this application under Article 226 of the Constitution.

7. According to the learned counsel, no writ of certiorari can issue against an arbitration award passed by an arbitrator to whom a reference has been made by agreement of parties under Section 10A of the Industrial Disputes Act. So far as this is concerned, quite naturally, Mr. V. K. K. Menon, relied upon the judgment of my learned brother, Mr. Justice Velu Pillai reported in A. T. K. M. Employees Association v. Musaliar Industries, (1961) 1 Lab LJ 81 (Kerala) as also the judgment on appeal. The learned Judge in that case has accepted the contention advanced before him that under such circumstances the arbitrator cannot be considered to be a statutory arbitrator, and, therefore, no proceedings under Article 226 can be initiated challenging the award of such an arbitrator.

8. This judgment of my learned brother, Mr. Justice Velu Pillai, was under attack before my Lord the Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Govindan Nair, in their decision reported in A. T. K. M. Employees Association v. Musaliar Industries, 1962 Ker LJ 865. The view of Mr. Justice Velu Pillai, that under such circumstances the arbitrator under S. 10A cannot be considered to be a statutory arbitrator and, therefore, Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be invoked, was accepted by the learned Judges in the appeal also.

9. It is really on the basis of these decisions of this court that Mr. V. K. K. Menon, learned counsel for the management has

Click Here to Read the rest of this document