• Today: October 31, 2025

State of Bombay v. K.P. Krishnan

31 October, 2025
1901
State of Bombay v. K.P. Krishnan — Easy English Case Explainer

State of Bombay v. K.P. Krishnan

Supreme Court of India 1960 AIR 1960 SC 1223 Labour / Industrial Law ~8 min read
Author: Gulzar Hashmi  |  India  |  Published:
Section 12(5) duty to refer go-slow
Hero image for State of Bombay v. K.P. Krishnan

Quick Summary

Core point: Under Section 12(5)go-slow. The discretion is not absolute. If there is a prima facie case—like a reasoned bonus claim—the dispute should be referred.

Result: The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s mandamus. The Government’s refusal based only on go-slow was improper; it had to reconsider the reference on relevant grounds.

Issues
  1. Could the Government refuse reference under Section 12(5) only because workers adopted a go-slow?
  2. Is the Section 12(5) discretion absolute, or must a reference be made when a prima facie case exists?
Rules
  • Bounded discretion: Govt must rely on germane reasons (e.g., dispute is stale, frivolous, or legally untenable).
  • No punitive refusal: Refusal cannot be used to punish worker misconduct like go-slow.
  • Purpose of adjudication: Resolve disputes based on merits (e.g., profits/bonus), not worker conduct history.
Facts (Timeline)
View Image
Parties: Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co. (India) Ltd. vs its workmen’s union.
Demands: Gratuity, holidays, reclassification, and bonus for FY ending 31 Oct 1953.
Bonus declared: Company paid 1/4 basic earnings; union claimed more based on profits.
Conciliation: Only reclassification & bonus admitted; talks failed; failure report (5 Jul 1954) said bonus claim was not frivolous.
Govt refusal: (11 Dec 1954) Declined to refer, citing workers’ earlier go-slow.
High Court: Mandamus to reconsider—reason given was extraneous/punitive.
Supreme Court: Upheld HC; clarified limits on Section 12(5) discretion.
Arguments

State/Company

  • Govt had wide discretion under 12(5) akin to 10(1).
  • Go-slow justified refusal to refer.
  • Conciliation report not binding.

Workmen/Union

  • Discretion is limited; must consider merits and failure report.
  • Go-slow is extraneous to bonus entitlement.
  • There was a prima facie case; reference required.
Judgment (Held)
View Image
  • 12(5) not absolute: Govt must act on relevant, legal considerations and refer when a prima facie case exists.
  • Go-slow ≠ valid reason: Refusal grounded only on go-slow is punitive and improper.
  • Conciliation report matters: It indicated the bonus claim wasn’t frivolous—favouring reference.
Final Outcome Details
Appeal Dismissed High Court’s mandamus affirmed; Govt to reconsider reference on relevant grounds; costs awarded.
Ratio Decidendi

Section 12(5) creates a duty to refer when a case is made out. Government’s refusal must rest on legally germane reasons. Punishing go-slow via refusal is outside the statute’s purpose.

Why It Matters
  • Prevents misuse of reference power as a disciplinary tool.
  • Protects industrial adjudication as a forum for merits.
  • Guides Governments to weigh relevant materials like failure reports.
Key Takeaways
  • 12(5) ≠ free hand: Refer when a case exists.
  • Go-slow is extraneous to bonus entitlement.
  • Use germane reasons: stale/frivolous/legally untenable.
Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “REFER ON MERIT, NOT MISCONDUCT”

  1. Check Case: Is there a prima facie dispute?
  2. Check Reasons: Use relevant legal grounds only.
  3. No Punish: Don’t deny reference for go-slow.
IRAC Outline

Issue: Was refusal under 12(5) valid when based only on go-slow? Is 12(5) discretion absolute?

Rule: Discretion is bounded; must rely on relevant factors; duty to refer on prima facie case.

Application: Bonus claim had merit per failure report; Govt relied on extraneous go-slow; refusal invalid.

Conclusion: Mandamus upheld; reconsider on proper grounds.

Glossary
Section 12(5)
After conciliation fails, Govt decides on reference; decision must use relevant, legal reasons.
Go-slow
Deliberate slowing of work; may invite discipline, but does not defeat a valid dispute’s reference.
Prima facie case
An apparent case on facts/law that warrants adjudication by a Tribunal.
Student FAQs

No. Section 12(5) imposes a duty to refer when a case exists. It is more constrained than a free discretion.

For discipline, yes; for reference under 12(5), it cannot be the sole ground if the dispute has merit.

No, but it is a key factor. Govt can consider other relevant materials too.

Clear, germane reasons: stale, frivolous, or legally untenable dispute—not punishment.
Reviewed by The Law Easy
Labour Law Industrial Disputes Government Discretion

Comment

Nothing for now