9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Justification of the transfer of publication to Andhra Prabha Private Ltd. and the relief entitled to workers and journalists. 2. Justification of the strike and subsequent lockout, and the relief entitled to workers and journalists. Detailed Analysis: 1. Justification of the Transfer of Publication and Relief to Workers and Journalists: The primary issue was whether the transfer of the publication of Andhra Pradesh and Andhra Prabha Illustrated Weekly to Andhra Prabha Private Ltd. in Vijayawada was justified. The respondents contended that this transfer contravened a verbal assurance given by the appellant's Chairman during previous negotiations that the publication would not be moved for 2-1/2 years. This assurance, although not documented, was argued to be a term of employment, and its violation materially affected the workers' conditions of service. The Tribunal was tasked with determining the validity of this verbal assurance and whether it constituted a condition of service. 2. Justification of the Strike and Subsequent Lockout, and Relief to Workers and Journalists: The second issue involved the justification of the strike by workers and journalists starting from April 27, 1959, and the subsequent lockout by the management. The Tribunal had to determine whether the appellant's action was a genuine closure of business or a disguised lockout. The respondents argued that the closure was a reprisal for the strike, while the appellant maintained it was a bona fide closure. The Tribunal was to examine the facts to ascertain whether the action taken by the appellant amounted to a lockout or a closure, impacting the validity of the industrial dispute. Jurisdiction and Procedure: The High Court had the jurisdiction to entertain the appellant's petition at the initial stage of the proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal. If the action by the appellant was a genuine closure, the dispute could not be considered an industrial dispute. Conversely, if it was a lockout disguised as a closure, it would fall within the jurisdiction of industrial adjudication. The High Court's power to issue a writ of certiorari in such cases was acknowledged, but it was deemed more appropriate for the Industrial Tribunal to first investigate the complex factual issues. Court's Findings: The Court of Appeal held that the Industrial Tribunal, being a specialized body, should first examine the preliminary issue of whether the appellant's action was a closure or a lockout. The High Court could intervene post this determination if necessary. The Court emphasized that the Tribunal should not be influenced by the observations made by the trial and appellate courts regarding the transfer. Specific Arguments and Court's Response: - Issue No. 1: The appellant argued that the transfer of business could not be an industrial dispute. However, the respondents' contention about the verbal assurance made this issue relevant for industrial adjudication. The Tribunal was to determine the existence and impact of this assurance. - Issue No. 2: The wording of the issue suggested a predetermined conclusion that the appellant's action was a lockout. The Court clarified that the Tribunal must independently assess whether the action was a lockout or a closure, considering all relevant facts. Conclusion: The Court upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal, directing the Industrial Tribunal to investigate the issues comprehensively. The Tribunal was to determine the validity of the verbal assurance and whether the appellant's action constituted a lockout or a closure. The appeals were dismissed with costs, emphasizing the need for careful consideration by the State Government before issuing orders under section 10(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Final Remarks: The Tribunal was instructed to approach the issues independently, without being influenced by prior judicial observations. The State Government's order under section 10(3) was deemed ill-advised, highlighting the importance of thorough deliberation before exercising such jurisdiction.
|
