GUPTA, J.—The question that arises for determination in this writ petition is as to whether the State Government is competent to make an amendment by way of addition, in a reference made under Section 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), pending adjudication before an Industrial Tribunal.

2. The facts briefly put are that there was an industrial dispute between the Management of live newspapers and their workmen, represented by the Rajasthan Samachar Patra Karamchari sangh, Jaipur (hereinafter called as the Union) in respect of the implementations of the recommendations of the Wage Board in relation to non working journalist employees. The State Government by its order dated August 30, 1969 referred the following dispute to the Industrial Tribunal under Section 10(1) (d) of the Act: —

"Whether the work of printing carriedon in the undermentioned press on contract basis is contrary to the recommendations of the Wage Board? If so, to what relief are the workmen entitled?

1. Rashtradoot, Jaipur,

2. Dainik Navjyoti, Jaipur,

3. Dainik Navjyoti, Ajmer,

4. Lokwani, Jaipur,

5. Rajasthan Patrika, Jaipur."

3. The Union submitted its statement of claim and in para 15 thereof it was stated that the work of printing carried out in the concerned newspapers on contract system included both composition a? well as printing. The Management of the Rashtradoot Printing Press disputed the claim of the workmen alleging that the composition and printing were different departments, which have separate existence While this matter was being disputed by the parties before the Industrial Tribunal, the State Government issued a corrigendum notification on March 16, 1970 by which it clarified that after the word printing referred to in the order of reference the words like composition, printing etc. be added. This latter notification issued by the State Government dated March 16, 1970 has led to the filing of the present writ petition. The case of the petitioner is that once a dispute was referred by the State Government to the Industrial Tribunal and the same is pending adjudication before the Tribunal, the State Government has no jurisdiction to modify or amend the terms of such reference and that the amendment made by the latter notification has the effect of totally changing the scope of the earlier reference made by the State Government, inasmuch as persons employed in the work of composition were also sought to be included in the dispute referred to for adjudication, by making an amendment in the terms of reference.

4. It may be stated at the outset that learned counsel for the petitioner did not dispute that the State Government was empowered to make a fresh reference to the Industrial Tribunal under Section 10 (l)(d), in respect of the workmen employed in the composition department of the concerned printing presses. Even a supplementary reference could also be made. But what is disputed by the petitioner is that the earlier order of reference could not be subsequently amended or altered by bringing within its ambit workmen belonging to the composition department, as they were not initially included in the original reference, which related only to the workmen employed in the printing department of the concerned printing presses. Learned counsel relied upon the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in State of Bihar vs. DNG. Ganguly (1) in support of his contention. In that case the State Government by a notification referred a dispute between the Management of the Bata Shoe Company Ltd. and their 31 workmen for adjudication to an Industrial Tribunal under Section 10 (1) (d) of the Act. By another notification a similar industrial dispute between the same Bata Company and its 21 workmen was referred by the State Government to the same Tribunal. By a third notification, the State Government superseded the earlier two notifications and combined the two disputes into one and referred the consolidated disput

Click Here to Read the rest of this document