( 1 ) THIS is an application on behalf of the Indian Sugar Mills Association through its President shri Hari Raj Swarup under Article 226 of the Constitution for the following reliefs :

"it is, therefore, prayed that this Court may be pleased to issue writs in the nature of Mandamus, prohibition, or such other writ or order as the Court may consider proper, restraining the opposite parties from enforcing Notfn. No. 1425 (ST) (II) XVIII-13 (ST)-50, dated 5-7-1950, or pass such other order as the Court may deem fit under the circumstances of the case. "

( 2 ) THIS relief is claimed mainly against the State of Uttar Pradesh and certain officers of the state as also against three Labour Federations, the U. P. and Bihar Sugar Mills Workers federation, the U. P. and Bihar Chine Mill Mazdoor Federation and the. National Sugar Mill workers Federation.

( 3 ) SOME dispute had arisen between the labourers working in sugar mills and certain sugar factories in this Province and the Government purported to appoint a Court of Enquiry under sections 6 and 10, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (XIV [14] of 1947), which for the sake of brevity may be called the Central Act. The matters which were referred to it for report were, to put it shortly, bonus payable to the workmen in the crushing season, of 1948-49, adjustments of bonus paid in 1947-48 and payment of retaining allowance for the off season. The other matters about leave etc. are no longer in dispute and need not be referred to.

( 4 ) IN the first Notfn. No. 167 (ST)/xviii, Labour Department, Government of the United provinces, dated Lucknow 11-1-1950, the Court of Enquiry consisted of the Honble Mr. Justice bind Basni Prasad, a learned Judge of this Court as Chairman and Sarvashri Hari Har Nath shastri and D. R. Narang as members. By a Notfn. No. 217 (ST)/xviii, Labour Department, government of the United Provinces, dated Lucknow, 13-1-1950, the names of the other two gentlemen of the Court of Enquiry were removed and Bind Basni Prasad J. became the sole member of the Court of Enquiry. Certain amendments were also made by a Notfn. No. 192 (ST)/xviii, Labour Department, Government of the United Provinces, dated Lucknow, 12-1-1950, about the question of payment of bonus. It is not necessary to set them put in detail.

( 5 ) MR. Pathak has urged that the scheme of the Central Act contemplates the appointment of a board of Conciliation which brings the two parties together and tries to settle the matter amicably. The Board of Conciliation has no power to give an award against the wishes of the parties. That there is also a provision for appointment of an Industrial Tribunal which can make an award. That a Court of Enquiry can be appointed under Section 6 only to enquire into any matter appearing to be connected with or relating to an industrial dispute. The report of the Court of Enquiry has to be published under Section 17 of the Act but there is no provision in the central Act for its enforcement as an award. Prima facie, without expressing any definite opinion, this argument appears to have considerable substance. We may, however, point out that in the order, which is being challenged in these proceedings, the Government did not purport to enforce this report as an award but treated it merely as material on which it based its conclusions and adopted only so much of it as it approved and then purported to make an order of its own under Section 3, U. P. Industrial Disputes Act (XXVIII [28] of 1947 ). This Act, for the sake of brevity, has been hereafter mentioned as the U. P. Act.

( 6 ) THE order complained against is in the Notfn. No. 1425 (ST)/xviii-13 (ST)-50, Labour department, Government of Uttar Pradesh, dated Lucknow, 5-7-1950. In, this notification it is mentioned that the Court of Enquiry had recommended the payment to the workers of bonus and retaining allowance and the same had been generally accepted by the State Government and the governor, therefore, in exercise of the powers con

Click Here to Read the rest of this document