National Textile Corporation (Dp and R) Ltd. and 3 ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/760684
SubjectLabour and Industrial
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided OnAug-18-1988
Case NumberD.B. Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 895 to 898 of 1988
Judge Suresh Chandra Agrawal and; Pana Chand Jain, JJ.
Reported in1988(2)WLN275
AppellantNational Textile Corporation (Dp and R) Ltd. and 3 ors.
RespondentState of Rajasthan and ors.
DispositionPetition allowed
Cases ReferredHotel Imperial v. Hotel Worker
Excerpt:
Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]
industrial disputes act, 1947 - sections 10(1) & 12(5)--reference--discretion vests in government to make reference--reference once made cannot be withdrawn or cancelled--government is empowered to add or amplify matter referred.;power and discretion to make a reference is vested in the appropriate government under section 10(1) and for refusing to make the reference the government is required to comply with the requirements of section 12(5). further the reference once made by the government cannot be withdrawn, cancelled or superseded, however, while acting under section 10 of the act; the government will have power to add to, or amplify a matter referred for adjudication.;(b) industrial disputes act, 1947 - sections 10(1), 10k, 17 a & 20--reference--dispute referred to.....
Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]
pana chand jain, j.1. since common question of law is involved in all the above mentioned writ petitions, they are being disposed of by a common order.2. the petitioner of d.b. civil writ petition no. 895/88, is a unit of shree bijay cotton mills, bijay nagar, petitioner of d.b. civil writ petition no. 896/88 is a unit of mahalaxmi mills beawar, petitioner of d.b. civil writ petition no. 897/88 is a unit of edward mills, beawar and petitioner of d.b. civil writ petition no. 898/88 is a unit of udaipur cotton mills udaipur. the petitioner is a subsidiary corporation of the national textiles corporation ltd., new delhi (for short 'ntc' here in after) is a company incorporated under the companies act. the petitioner's various units named above were the companies in the private sector and.....
Judgment:

Pana Chand Jain, J.

1. Since common question of law is involved in all the above mentioned writ petitions, they are being disposed of by a common order.

2. The petitioner of D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 895/88, is a Unit of Shree Bijay Cotton Mills, Bijay Nagar, petitioner of D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 896/88 is a unit of Mahalaxmi Mills Beawar, petitioner of D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 897/88 is a unit of Edward Mills, Beawar and petitioner of D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 898/88 is a unit of Udaipur Cotton Mills Udaipur. The petitioner is a subsidiary Corporation of the National Textiles Corporation Ltd., New Delhi (for short 'NTC' here in after) is a company incorporated under the Companies Act. The petitioner's various units named above were the companies in the private sector and since they were in liquidation the management of their units were taken by the Central Government under the provisions of the Sick Textile (Taking over of Management) Act, 1972 in the year 1972 and subsequently, the mills were nationalised in the year 1974 under the provisions of the Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act 1974 and their ownership was transferred to the NTC Ltd., under Section 3 of the said Act. NTC Ltd. formed 9 subsidiary corporations under Section 6 of the said Act and the petitioner is one of the nine subsidiary corporations which is controlling and managing the aforesaid mills. The said mills remained a relief undertaking from 1972 prior to their nationalisation. It is stated in the petition that even though the mills referred to above were nationalised in the year 1974, they continued to incur losses continuously since then. It is further stated that the petitioners are paying wages to the workmen of the mills in accordance with the recommendations of the second Central Wage Board for Textile Industries. In the year 1981, the various trade union of workmen of Textile Industries in Rajasthan, submitted a Charter of Demands on the Textile Mills of Rajasthan. The said Charter of Demands was also sent to the unit of the petitioner which was not a member of the Rajasthan Textile Mills Association. It has been further pleaded by the petitioners that a settlement was reached between the Unions and the Rajasthan Textile Mills Association on 29th July, 1982 under which, inter alia, it was agreed that an ad-hoc increase of Rs. 35/- per month shall be given to the workmen of Textile Mills who were members of the Rajasthan Textile Mills Association. The petitioner also entered into a settlement on 25th September, 1982 on the lines of the settlement dated 29th July, 1982 mentioned above. Since no settlement was made in regard to the demand for increase in wages the Labour Commissioner Rajasthan called the representatives of workmen as well as of the Textile Mills for negotiations and conciliation some time in 1984 but nothing came out of the proceedings, consequently the Conciliation Officer submitted the failure report the State Government on 6th September, 1984. From the failure report it appears that the issues raised on behalf of the Textile Mills included the question of financial incapability to give further increase in wages as well as the question of determining work loads. On the basis of the failure report, the State Government set up a Court of Enquiry and referred the disputes and matters to the Court of Enquiry for recommendation vide order dated 2nd April, 1985. After referring the disputes and matters to the Court of Enquiry as stated above the State Government vide notification dated 5th April, 1985 issued directions under Section 10K of the Industrial Disputes Act (as applicable to State of Rajasthan) whereby it was directed that the ad-hoc increase of Rs. 35/-will continue till such time the Court of Enquiry gives its report and the said amount would be absorbed against the demand of wages, increased D.A., annual increment and H.R.A. as may be determined and settled on the basis of the report of the Court of Enquiry. The Court of Enquiry gave its report on 15-7-1986. After the receipt of the report of the Court of Enquiry, the State Government in exercise of its powers under Section 10-K of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 issued an order dated 16th February, 1987 with reference to the Demand Charter of December, 1981 raised by 5 Central Organizations of Trade Unions of workmen of Textile Industries in Rajasthan. The relevant directions made in the order as under:

[a] The employees of all textile mills in Rajasthan State pay a sum of Rs. 57.50 to each of their workmen per month by way of increase in wages with effect from 1-1-1987;

[b] The said increase will not be given to the workmen of Textile Mills which are managed by the National Textile Corporation, and those Textile Mills which are declared as relief under-takings or are lying closed;

[c] That the aforesaid increase will be given during the operation of the order;

[d] The demand for wage increase shall be deemed to be settled;

[e] The order shall remain in operation for 2 years.

3. The case of the petitioners is that from the relevant directions contained in order dated 16th February, 1987, it is clear that the said directions are not applicable to the workmen of Textile Mills which are managed by the NTC and other Sick Mills similarly situated. The contention of the petitioner is that the fact that the State Government did not apply the directions in the aforesaid order to the Mills managed by the NTC Ltd., is by itself sufficient to infer that the Government was convinced on the material available including the record of the enquiry that it was proper not to apply with the directions contained in the order, to Textile Mills Managed by the NTC Ltd. and similarly situated Sick Mills.

4. It appears that subsequent to the order dated 16th February, 1987 the State Government vide notification dated 29th July, 1987 referred two matter for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal Jaipur pertaining to the petitioner Mills which were managed by the National Textiles Corporation (Delhi Punjab and Rajasthan) Ltd., New Delhi. These two matters pertain to the question whether the workmen employed in four Textile Mills are entitled to any increase in their wages and if so, from which date as also the Question of the determination of the work loads. It also appears that after the said reference was made for adjudication certain Unions had written a letter to the Labour Minister, Government of Rajasthan demanding that each worker of four mills managed by the National Textiles Corporation Ltd., be given an increase of Rs. 57.50 per month in his wages with effect from 1-1-1987by way of an interim increment as according to the unions, the questioned referred to the Industrial Tribunal is not likely to-be decided even within a period of 5 years. It further appears that the State Government acting in exercise of the powers under Section 10-K of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 issued the impugned order dated 17th March, 1988 directing the four Textiles Mills managed by the NTC Ltd., to pay a sum of Rs. 57.50 to each of the Workers with effect from 1-1-87 to be adjusted in accordance with the award of the Industrial Tribunal before whom the reference is pending. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 17th March, 1988 on the ground that the order issued under Section 10-K is without jurisdiction as the State Government does not have any power to pass such an order under the said section in relation to any dispute which has already been referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal.

5. The petitions were admitted on 18th April, 1988 and this Court on the stay petition directed that in the meanwhile the operation of the order dated 17th March, 1988 passed by the State Government with regard to the payment of interim relief shall remain stayed. Respondent No. 4 has moved an application for vacation of the stay order on the ground that the State Government was justified and if the stay order is allowed to be continued an irreparable loss will be caused to the workmen. Since short question of law involved in this case, at the request of the parties arguments were heard on the main petition on 13th July, 1988.

6. We have heard Shri C.N. Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri P.K. Sharma, learned for the respondent No. 4, Shri B.L. Samdariya for the respondent No. 7 and Shri K.S. Rathore learned Addl. G.A. The main question to be decided in these cases is whether after a reference is made for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, the State Government has jurisdiction to pass an order during the pendency of adjudication relating to the subject matter of reference, under Section 10-K of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 i c. whether the State Government had jurisdiction to grant interim increase of Rs. 57.50 ps in wages vide impugned order dated 17th March, 1988, when the question of increase in wages was already pending adjudication before the Industrial Tribunal vide notification dated 29th July, 1987.

7. There is no dispute between the parties that the reference had been made by the State Government under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with clause(4) thereto vide notification dated 29th July, 1987 to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. One of the disputes referred was in relation to the entitlement of the workmen of four National Textiles Mills for increase in wages including the question of such entitlement. There is no dispute between the parties that order under Section 10-K of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was passed subsequent to the order of reference on 17th March, 1988 i.e. after a lapse of 7 months. In order to appreciate the rival contentions made by the learned Counsel for the parties, it would be better if we reproduce Section 10-K of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as applicable to the State of Rajasthan as under:

10-K (1) Not with standing any thing contained in the Act, if in the opinion of the State Government it is necessary or expedient so to do, for securing the public safety or convenience or the maintenance of public order or supplies and services essential to the life of the community or for maintaining employment or maintaining industrial peace, it may be a general or special order, make provision:

(a) for requiring employers, workmen or both to observe for such period as may be specified in the order, such terms and conditions of employment at may be determined in accordance with the order; and

(b) for prohibiting, subject to the provision of the order, strikes or lock-out in connection with any Industrial Dispute.

(2) In case any Industrial Dispute is raised in respect of any provisions in the order of the State Government made under Sub-section (1) within a period of three months of the order, it shall be referred by the State Government for adjudication to an Industrial Tribunal and the order shall lapse when the award of the Tribunal becomes enforceable;

Provided, however, that the reference of the Industrial Dispute to adjudication shall not have the effect of staying the operation of the order.

8. Section 10 K of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was inserted w.e.f. 26-2-1970 by the Industrial Disputes (Rajasthan Amendment) Act 1970 (Act No. 14 of 1970) with the object to give certain powers to the Government in extra-ordinary circumstances for securing public safety or convenience or the maintenance of public order or supplies and services essential to the life of the community or for maintaining employment or maintaining Industrial peace. In case the State Government is satisfied that an acute emergency exists which necessitates the exercise of powers under Section 10K of the Act to maintain essential services for the life of community and for the purpose of maintaining public order or maintaining industrial peace it is invested with the powers to issue general or special order giving direction for requiring the employers, workmen or both to observe for such period as may be specified in the order, such terms and conditions of employment as may be determined in accordance with the order. Sub-section (2) of Section 10K is very relevant for determining the controversy raised in this case. It provides that in case an Industrial Dispute is raised in respect of any provisions in the order of the State Government made under sub Section (1) of Section 10K of the Act within a period of 3 months of the order, the dispute is to be referred by the State Government for adjudication to an Industrial Tribunal and the order shall lapse when the award of the Tribunal becomes enforceable. Section 10-K thus provides two conditions for making a reference. First condition is that an industrial dispute is required to be raised in respect of any provisions the order of the State Government made under Sub-section (1) of Section 10-K and second condition it that such a dispute is to be raised within a period of 3 months of the order. Sub-section (2) of Section 10-K is couched in language which is imperative and mandatory. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 10-K of the Act the State Government is left with no other discretion but to refer the Industrial Dispute to an Industrial Tribunal for adjudication provided the contingencies stated above are fulfilled. Thus whereas under Section 10-K the Government has been empowered to issue a special order or general order but at the same time a check has been provided in Sub-section (2) of Section 10 that in case an industrial dispute is raised in respect of any provision in the order of the State Government made under Sub-section (1), it shall be referred by the State Government for adjudication.

9. A bare reading of Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with Sub-section (4) provides that once an industrial dispute is referred for adjudication to the industrial tribunal the said Tribunal acquires jurisdiction to adjudicate' upon the points referred to it and also the matters incidental thereto. In the instant case there is no dispute that one of the matters referred for adjudication was in relation to entitlement of the four MTC Textile Mills for increase in wages including the question of the date of such entitlement. The State Government under Section 10K' had directed the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs. 57.50 to each workman with effect from 1st January, 1987 to be adjusted in accordance with the award of the industrial tribunal. Thus it can be said that what has been directed to be paid to the workmen in pursuance of the impugned order dated 17th March, 1988 is nothing but it is in the nature of interim relief pending adjudication of the demand with regard to payment of wages. Thus the question is whether after referring the matter for adjudication to the Tribunal can the Government pass an order under Section 10K of the Act.

10. Shri C.N. Sharma learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the question of granting interim relief in wages is a question which is incidental to the dispute relating to increase in wages and when the Industrial Tribunal is seized of the matter, the State Government should not be allowed to interfere in the judicial proceedings by passing an executive order under Section 10K of the Act. Shri Sharma further has urged that the scheme of Section 10K itself bars the State Government from exercising any power to pass an order under Section 10K in relation to any dispute which has already been referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, because Section 10K itself provides for raising an industrial dispute. Shri Sharma also points out that in the instant case, the facts are in the reverse order. The State Government first referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal and later on directed the NTC Textile Mills to pay a sum of Rs. 57.70 per month as increase in wages with effect from 1st January, 1987, that too after a lapse of 7 months of the passing of the order under Section 10K. Shri Sharma has also submitted that there was no occasion for the State Government to pass an order under Section 10 K for giving direction to pay a sum of Rs. 57.50 per month as increase in wages, because the State Government while exercising its powers under Section 10K of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 had directed vide order dated 16-2-87 that the amount of Rs. 57.50 shall not be payable to the workmen of the NTC Textile Mills. Sarva Shri P.K. Sharma and B.L. Samdariya learned Counsel for the unions and the learned Addl. Government Advocate have submitted that the order passed by the State Government was well within its power for giving interim relief to the workmen in order to maintain industrial peace and looking into the circumstances that there was rapid increase in the prices of the essential commodities.

11. We have given our anxious consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties. As already stated earlier we are required to decide, whether the State Government had jurisdiction to grant interim increase of Rs. 57.50 in wages vide impugned order dated 17th March, 1988, when the question of increase in wages was already pending adjudication vide notification dated 29th July, 1987.

12. Shri C.N. Sharma learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the Management Hotel Imperial, New Delhi and Ors., v. Hotel Workers Union : (1959)IILLJ544SC . While considering the powers of the Industrial Tribunal the Supreme Court observed that after a dispute is referred to the Tribunal under Section 10 of the Act, it is enjoined on it by Section 15 to hold its proceedings expeditiously and on conclusion thereof submit its award to the appropriate Government. The Supreme Court further observed that an award is defined in Section 2(b) of the Act as meaning 'an interim or final determination by an Industrial Tribunal of any industrial dispute or of any question relating thereto. The Supreme Court further observed that where an order referring an industrial dispute has been made specifying the points of dispute for adjudication the Tribunal has to confine its adjudication to those points and matters incidental thereto The Apex Court further observed that there can be no doubt that if for example, question of reinstatement and or compensation is referred to the Tribunal for adjudication, the question of granting interim relief till the decision of the Tribunal with respect to the same matter would be a matter incidental thereto under Section 10(4) and need not be specifically referred in terms to the Tribunal.

13. The word 'incidental' means according to Webster's New World Dictionary 'happening or likely to happen as a result of or in connection with something more important being an incidental casual hence, secondary or minor, but usually associated' Incidental to a dispute must therefore mean in connection with the dispute or associated with the dispute.

14. In State of Bihar v. D.N. Ganguly and Ors. : (1958)IILLJ634SC a Question arose as to whether the Government can cancel or supersede a reference already made under Section 10(1) of the Act, the Supreme Court held that the Act does not expressly confer any power on the appropriate Government to cancel or supersede a reference made under Section 10(1) of the Act The only power given to the appropriate Government is that it can act in respect of a reference pending 'adjudication before a Tribunal only under Section 13(5) of the Act which authorises it to add other parties to the pending dispute subject to the conditions mentioned in the said provision. The Supreme Court after considering the various provisions of the Industrial dispute Act 1947 observed that it would be reasonable to hold that except for cases falling under Sub-section (5) of Section 10 of the Act the appropriate Government stands outside the reference proceedings, which are under control and jurisdiction of the Tribunal itself.

15. Shri Samdariya learned Counsel for respondent has placed reliance on East Sugar Mills v. State of U P. and Ors. 1978 (2) LLJ 412.

16. We are of the opinion that said case is not at all relevant for deciding the controversy raised in the writ petition. The question that arose in the appeal before the Supreme Court in that case was whether Section 3(b) of the UP Industrial Disputes Act is inconsistent with the Payment of Bonus Act and whether an agreement within the meaning of Section 34(1) of the Payment of Bonus Act, could be spelt out. Thus the proposition of law laid down in that case is not at all relevant. Another case relied upon by the Union is Basant Kumar and Ors. v. Eagle Rolling Mills Ltd; and Ors. 1964(2) LLJ 105. It was a case under the Employees State Insurance Act and we do not find anything which is relevant for deciding the dispute raised in these writ petitions. It was a case where the employer withdrew the existing medical benefits given to the employees and the order of withdrawal of medical benefit was challenged in the writ petition. The Supreme Court observed that the proper remedy for the concerned workmen would be to raise an industrial dispute or to resort to the remedies provided under Sections 74 and 75 of the Employees State Insurance Act.

17. In these cases, the Government had passed an order on 16th February, 1987 under Section 10K of the Act, where by it gave directions to the employers of all textile mills in Rajasthan to pay a sum of Rs. 57.50 to each of their workmen per month by way of increase in wages with effect from 1st Jan., 1987. But at the same time it was ordered that this increase will not be given to the workmen of textile mills which are managed by the NTC Ltd. Thereafter, on 29th July, 1987 two matters were referred for adjudication to the Tribunal pertaining to the four textile mills managed by the petitioners. These two matters pertain to the questions whether the workmen employed in the four textiles mills are entitled to any increase in their wages and, if so, from which date as also the question of determination of work loads. During the pendency of the adjudication before the Industrial Tribunal, the State Government on 17th March, 1988, passed an order in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 10K of the Act directing the said four Textile Mills managed by the National Textile Corporation to pay a sum of Rs. 57.50 to each of their workmen with effect from 1st January, 1987 to be adjusted in accordance with the award of the Industrial Tribunal before whom the reference is pending.

18. It would be advantageous to reproduce Section 10(4) of the Act which runs as follows:

Where in an order referring on industrial dispute to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal under this section or in a subsequent order, the appropriate government has specified the parts of dispute for adjudication the Labour Court or the Tribunal or the National Tribunal, as the case may be, shall confine its adjudication to those points and matters incidental thereto.

19. In the premises aforesaid on the basis of the decision of the case of Hotel Imperial (supra) and on reading the provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 10 quoted above, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal while considering the reference, has to confine itself to the adjudication of the matter of dispute specified at the time of reference, but while doing so it has also power to adjudicate all matters incidental to the said matter. The reference in this case was made under Section 10(1) of the Act relating to the dispute about demand for increase in wages. In such a case direction with regard to payment of Rs. 57.50 is in the nature of ad hoc increase in wages and amounts to grant of interim relief in a dispute for demand of increase in wages as according to the Oxford Dictionary the word 'interim' means 'a temporary or provisional arrangement adopted in the meanwhile'. Such an interim relief can be granted by the Tribunal under Section 10(4) of the Act.

20. A bare reading of Sections 10(1) and Section 12(5) of the Act shows that power and discretion to make a reference is vested in the appropriate Government under Section 10(1) and for refusing to make the reference the government is required to comply with the requirements of Section 12(5). Further the reference once made by the Government cannot be withdrawn, cancelled or superseded, however, while acting under Section 10 of the Act, the government will have power to add to, or amplify a matter referred for adjudication. Further Section 10(5) authorises the Government to add other parties to the pending dispute, subject to the conditions mentioned in the said section. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 10K of the Act, the State Government has no discretion, but to refer the dispute raised in respect of any provision in the order of the Government, within a period of three months to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. But once an order is made by the appropriate Government under Section 10(1)referring an industrial dispute to the Tribunal for adjudication, proceedings before the Tribunal are deemed to have commenced and they are deemed to have concluded on the day on which the award made by the Tribunal becomes enforceable under Section 17A of the Act by virtue of Section 20. These provisions thus show that after the dispute is referred to the Tribunal, during the continuance of the reference proceedings, it is the Tribunal that is seized of the dispute and which alone can exercise jurisdiction in respect of it, and the appropriate Government stands out-side the reference proceedings, except acting in the circumstances referred to above In State of Bihar v. D.N. Ganguli AIR 1958 SC 101 the Supreme Court observed as under:

The Scheme of the provisions in Chapter-III and IV of the Act would thus appear to leave the reference proceedings exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Tribunals.

21. A study of Section 10(3), Section 23(b) and Section 33 of the Act, would indicate that the parties are required to maintain status-quo during the pendency of the proceedings before the Tribunal and not to take any action which may disturb industrial peace or prejudice a fair trial before the Tribunal. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was enacted for the purpose of promoting industrial peace and to have industrial disputes decided by special Tribunal provided in the Act as expeditiously as possible and if the appropriate Government is allowed to interfere in the proceedings before the Tribunal in the matter of dispute on merit, the proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal would be rendered wholly ineffective. Thus, we are of the opinion that the sole authority to decide the industrial disputes specified in the order of reference and the matters incidental there to is the Tribunal before whom the reference is pending and the Government stands outside the reference proceedings. It is thus clear that the State Government does not have any power to pass any order under Section 10K of the Act, in relation to any dispute which has already been referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal.

22. We have already held that the direction which regard to payment of Rs. 57.50 is in the nature of ad hoc increase in wages and amounts to grant of interim relief in a dispute of demand for increase in wages and, therefore, such a matter stands out side the jurisdiction and/or authority of State Government while exercising its power under Section 10-K of the Act, when an industrial dispute with regard to demand for increase in wages is already pending before the Industrial Tribunal. Consequently, we are thus of the opinion that the impugned order passed by the State Government dated 17-3-1988 (Annex.5) was without jurisdiction and is liable to be quashed.

23. It is true that while dealing with the reference, an Industrial has to confine itself to the adjudication of the points of dispute specified at the time of reference and while doing so it has the power to adjudicate all matters incidental to this point as held by the Supreme Court in Hotel Imperial v. Hotel Workers Union, 1959 S.C. 1392, where in it was also observed that an interim relief could be given by an Industrial Tribunal Under Section 10(4) of the Act.

24. Thus we have come to the conclusion that an Industrial Tribunal is competent to grant interim relief Under Section 10(4) of the Act, with respect to matters incidental to the points of dispute for adjudication. And that the Tribunal is competent to grant ad hoc increase in matter of industrial dispute with regard to demand for increase in wages, for the adjudication of which reference has been made to it by the State Government. The next question is under what circumstances an interim relief may be granted, it may be stated that granting of an interim relief is purely within the discretion of the Tribunal and this discretion is to be exercised with reason and sound judicial principles. We may adopt the same principles which govern the exercise of discretion by the Civil Court while granting temporary injunction. The principles may be stated as under:

Firstly, that there is prima-facie case, meaning there by that there is serious question to be tried and an existence of right;

Secondly, that the Tribunal's interference is necessary to protect the party from that species of injury which is regarded by the Courts irreparable and;

Thirdly, the balance of convenience that is the Tribunal should weigh the amount of substantial mischief that is likely to be done to the party claiming interim relief, if the same is refused and compare it with that which is likely to be caused to the other side if the interim relief is granted.

25. It is only after recording a finding on the basis of the above mentioned principles, the interim relief could be granted by the Tribunal. In Management Bihar State Electricity Board, 1971 (1) LLJ 389, Division Bench of the Patna High Court observed that merely the workman was unemployed and was undergoing great hardship cannot be a ground for grant of interim relief.

26. We have held that the Industrial Tribunal is competent to grant interim relief, it would be essential for the Tribunal to consider the main question as to whether interim relief which is something carved out of the main relief claimed by the workman, that is it is with respect to the same matter under adjudicatory proceedings. In Hotel Imperials case the Supreme Court observed that if question of re-instatement and/or compensation is referred to the Tribunal for adjudication, the question of granting interim relief till the decision would be a matter incidental to the main relief. In that case the Tribunal ordered that 43 out of 44 workmen who had applied for interim relief should be paid their wages plus a sum of Rs. 25 per month per head in lieu of food till final decision in the matter of those workmen, how ever, the order of the Tribunal granting interim relief was modified by the Supreme Court after making above observations & holding that the Industrial Tribunal is competent to grant interim relief. In Delhi Cloth & General Mills Ltd., v. Additional Tribunal 1969(2)LLJ 712, the Supreme Court followed the decision in Hotel Imperial v. Hotel Worker's Union AIR 1959 S.C. 1392 and observed that interim relief should not be the whole relief that workmen would get if they succeed finally. But incidental to a dispute must mean as observed by the Supreme court in Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co., v. Workmen 1967 (II) LLJ 423, something happening as a result of or in connection with the dispute or associated with the dispute.

27. In the result we allow the writ petition, the order dated 17-3-1988 (Annexure-7) to the writ petition is quashed. We may, how ever, observe that it will be open to the respondents Unions to make an application to the Industrial Tribunal for grant of interim relief of the workmen represented by them, if they are advised to do so and thereupon it would be for the Tribunal to dispose of that application in accordance with law in light of the principles laid down in this judgment. In the circumstances the will be no order as to costs.