Case Comment On State Of Bombay V. K.P. Krishnan & Ors.
- IJLLR Journal
- 15 hours ago
- 2 min read
Amisha Mehta, Symbiosis Law School, Nagpur, Symbiosis International University
Case Title: State of Bombay v. K.P. Krishnan & Ors.
Date of Judgement: 18-08-1960
Court: Supreme Court of India
Quorum: Justice P. B. Gajendragadkar, B. P. Sinha, C.J. and J.L. Kapur, K. Subba Rao, and K. N. Wanchoo, JJ
Citation: AIR 1960 SC 1223
Legal Provisions specified: Sections 10, 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; Article 226 of the Constitution of India
Subjects related to case: Administrative Law, Constitutional Law (Writs and Judicial Review), Industrial Disputes Law.
INTRODUCTION
This landmark judgment of the Supreme Court deals with the interpretation and application of Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in conjunction with Section 10(1) of the same statute. The case clarifies the nature of the State Government’s discretion in referring an industrial dispute for adjudication after the failure of conciliation proceedings. The decision also draws on constitutional principles, particularly Article 226, which empowers the High Courts to issue writs, including mandamus, against the State for the enforcement of legal rights.
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (herein after referred as IDA, 1947), was enacted by the parliament to provide for the investigation and settlement of any disputes in the industries. Section 12(5) prescribes that the government upon receiving the failure report from a conciliation officer, must refer the dispute to a Tribunal, if it fails to do so reasons for such failure it must recorded and communicated.
The central issue in this case was whether the Government of Bombay could legally abstain from referring the industrial dispute for adjudication solely on the ground that the employees concerned had engaged in a "go-slow" during the relevant period, and whether such refusal was compliant to writ jurisdiction.
