The conclusion of conciliation proceedings under Section 20(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 occurs when the report of the conciliation officer is received by the appropriate Government.

ORDER :

Govinda Menon, J.—By G.O. Ms. No. 397, dated 28 January 1953, of the Development Department the Government of Madras, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred for adjudication to the industrial tribunal having its place of sitting at Madras the industrial dispute between the workers and management of Messrs. Lakshmi Cafe, Madras, and this application is for a writ of certiorari to quash that order on the ground that at the time the reference was made there was no industrial dispute existing and that therefore the reference was without jurisdiction. The annexure to this Government order contains the several matters in dispute of which item 6 was not in existence when the conciliation took place. The six matters in dispute referred to in the annexure are the following:

(1) Fixation of scales of wages for different categories of employees.

(2) Fixation of the quantum of dearness allowance in the place of boarding and lodging.

(3) Fixation of number of days for sick, leave with wages in a year.

(4) Fixation of the quantum of bonus for the years 1947, 1948, 1949, 1950 and 1951.

(5) Fixation of the quantum of gratuity.

(6) Whether the closure of the hotel in July 1952 and the discharge of workers are justified and if not, to what relief the discharged workmen are entitled?

2. In order to appreciate the points of view put forward on either side one has to refer to the antecedent history of the whole affair. On behalf of the workers employed by the cafe, the Madras City Hotel Workers' Union of which most, if not all, of the workers were members, put up a number of demands and since the union could not come to a settlement by direct negotiation the labour officer of Madras was approached for conciliation proceedings and he undertook the task of conciliation on 21 March 1952 after issuing notice to the parties. During the conciliation proceedings, the demands were discussed and the conciliation officer made certain recommendations. It is not necessary for the purpose of this case to refer in detail to these recommendations which are contained in the letter of the conciliation officer, dated 29 May 1952, sent to the Secretary to the Government, Development Department, through the Commissioner of Labour, Madras. The conciliation officer tendered advice to both the management of the cafe as well as to the Madras City Hotel Workers' Union to dispassionately consider his recommendations and to come to a decision. It is seen from his letter that the union representatives were willing to accept the recommendations provided there was settlement on all the demands. The management expressed their inability by their letter, dated 14 April 1952, to accept the recommendations of the conciliation officer. Therefore, by his letter dated 29 May 1952, the aforesaid conciliation officer submitted to the Government that conciliation has failed in the dispute. A copy of this letter was submitted to the Commissioner of Labour and copies were sent to the proprietor of the Lakshmi Cafe and to the Secretary of the Madras City Hotel Workers' Union. In the normal course of things the letter to the Government, dated 29 May 1952, sent through the Commissioner of Labour must have reached the Government within a week at the most and one of the important questions for decision before me is the exact point of time at which this letter was received by the Government, because that is a crucial point which will have to be considered in the interpretation of Section 20, Clause (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, about this more will be said later.

3. After the management had expressed their inability to accept the recommendations made by the conciliation officer by their letter, dated 14 April 1952, on 2 May 1952 the proprietor of the cafe wrote a letter to the labour officer, Madras, who was the conciliation officer, asking for permission to close the cafe. In that letter the proprietor says that owing t