Industrial award extension by notification exceeded statutory power, while writ relief was not barred by delay or acquiescence.

A Government notification extending an industrial bonus award under section 114(2) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act was held to be limited by the subject matter and reach of industrial adjudication; an award that could not be imposed against a party's will could not be made binding by executive notification, so the notification and the award founded on it were ultra vires. Delay, laches or acquiescence did not bar relief under Article 226 because certiorari is discretionary only where the delay amounts to waiver or inequitable prejudice, and the appellant had consistently contested enforcement. The impugned orders were set aside, while future or pending bonus references were left to be decided according to law.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the Government notification issued under section 114(2) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 could validly extend the bonus award so as to bind the appellant; (ii) whether delay, laches or acquiescence barred relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): whether the Government notification issued under section 114(2) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 could validly extend the bonus award so as to bind the appellant.

Analysis: The power under section 114(2) was held to be limited by the subject-matter of the agreement, settlement, submission or award, and to be co-terminus with the power of industrial adjudication. An award or agreement which could not itself be imposed by industrial adjudication against the will of a party could not be made binding by executive notification. The notification, insofar as it compelled the appellant to accept the bonus arrangement, was beyond the statutory power.

Conclusion: The notification and the award founded upon it were ultra vires and liable to be quashed in favour of the appellant.

Issue (ii): whether delay, laches or acquiescence barred relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: Relief by certiorari is discretionary, but delay alone does not bar interference unless it amounts to waiver or causes prejudice making relief inequitable. The chronology showed that the appellant contested enforcement before the labour court and the industrial court and approached the High Court after the appellate decision. On those facts, no such waiver or prejudicial acquiescence was established.

Conclusion: The appellant was not disentitled to relief on the ground of delay, laches or acquiescence.

Final Conclusion: The impugned orders were set aside and certiorari was granted, while leaving any future or pending bonus references to be decided according to law.

Ratio Decidendi: A governmental notification extending an industrial award under section 114(2) cannot exceed the substantive limits of industrial adjudication, and discretionary writ relief is not barred by mere delay unless the conduct amounts to waiver or inequitable acquiescence.

---