Case Analysis: State Of Bombay V. K.P. Krishnan, AIR 1960 Sc 1223
- IJLLR Journal
- Aug 29
- 2 min read
Ishthartha H R, BBA LLB, Symbiosis Law School, Nagpur
Introduction:
This landmark decision by the Supreme Court in 1960 centered on the interpretation of Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (IDA), specifically the nature of the "discretion" vested in the "appropriate Government" to refer industrial disputes for adjudication after failed conciliation. The dispute arose between the Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co. and its workmen, who had raised four demands: gratuity, holidays, re-classification of certain employees, and an unconditional bonus for the 1952-53 financial year. The Firestone management, however, stood firm. They rejected all four demands outright. The workmen's union then turned to the machinery established by the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. They approached the Assistant Commissioner of Labour for Bombay, who was also the statutory Conciliation Officer. The Conciliation Officer admitted only the bonus and re-classification demands into conciliation. After failure of the conciliation , his report as mandated under Section 12(4) on account of failure of the conciliation process found "considerable substance" in the workmen's claims. However, the Bombay Government refused to refer the dispute under Section 12(5) to consider the failure report and determine whether the dispute merited reference to an Industrial Tribunal for adjudication, citing the sole reason that the workmen had resorted to "go-slow" tactics during 1952-53. The workmen successfully challenged this refusal via a writ of mandamus in the Bombay High Court, leading to the State's appeal to the Supreme Court.
Background:
In the aftermath of the Bombay Government’s refusal to refer this dispute under Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (IDA), the aggrieved workmen turned to the judiciary . In February 1955, under Article 226 of the Constitution, they filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court seeking a mandamus to compel the State to refer their demands for bonus and re-classification to adjudication. their argument was challenging the State’s rationale that past "go-slow" misconduct by workers which is already the subject of internal disciplinary proceedings, was being used as the sole basis to deny access to a statutory dispute resolution mechanism. The workmen contended that such reasoning amounted to a punitive veto over their legal rights, which is not related to the substantive merits of the dispute.
