1953 (10) TMI 40 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
2. Validity of the orders passed by the Labour Appellate Tribunal and the Provincial Industrial Court.
3. Application of the doctrine of res judicata.
4. Allegations of mala fide intentions behind the filing of the petition.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India:
The primary issue addressed in the judgment is whether the High Court of Orissa has the jurisdiction to issue a writ against the Labour Appellate Tribunal situated in Bombay. The petitioner contended that the High Court has jurisdiction because the dispute originated within its territorial jurisdiction. However, the objection raised by the fifth respondent was based on the decision of the Supreme Court in Election Commission v. Venkata Rao, which held that writs issued by High Courts cannot run beyond their territorial jurisdiction. The High Court concluded that it does not possess jurisdiction to interfere with the decision of the Appellate Tribunal as it is permanently located in Bombay. The Court emphasized that Article 226 does not make any reference to the cause of action but insists on the presence of the person or authority within the territories in relation to which the High Court exercises jurisdiction.

2. Validity of the orders passed by the Labour Appellate Tribunal and the Provincial Industrial Court:
The petitioner sought to quash the orders of the Labour Appellate Tribunal and the Provincial Industrial Court. The High Court examined the provisions of the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950, particularly Sections 6, 8, 15, and 16, which outline the constitution and functioning of the Appellate Tribunal. The Court noted that the Appellate Tribunal's order becomes enforceable after thirty days and is deemed to be substituted for the decision of the industrial tribunal. The High Court held that it could not interfere with the order of the industrial court as it would indirectly disturb the order of the Appellate Tribunal, which is beyond its jurisdiction.

3. Application of the doctrine of res judicata:
The petitioner argued that the previous orders passed in their favor operated as res judicata, preventing the reopening of the matter. However, the High Court did not delve deeply into this argument due to its decision on the jurisdictional issue. The Court focused on the fact that the Appellate Tribunal's order confirmed the industrial court's decision, making it inappropriate for the High Court to interfere.

4. Allegations of mala fide intentions behind the filing of the petition:
The fifth respondent alleged that the petition was filed with mala fide intentions to stifle the discussion of a no-confidence motion in the Legislative Assembly. The High Court, however, found no evidence to support this claim and stated that it was not concerned with the use of its decision in other spheres. The Court emphasized that it would not expedite the decision based on such allegations and would take the necessary time to deliberate on the matter.

Conclusion:
The High Court of Orissa dismissed the petition on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction to issue a writ against the Labour Appellate Tribunal situated in Bombay. The Court highlighted the limitations imposed by Article 226 of the Constitution, which requires the presence of the person or authority within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court. The Court also noted the potential conflict and legal uncertainty that would arise from quashing the order of the industrial court while leaving the Appellate Tribunal's order untouched. The petition was dismissed with a certificate for appeal under Article 132(1) of the Constitution.