9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the refusal by the Labour Appellate Tribunal and the Industrial Tribunal to exercise jurisdiction. 2. Determination of whether the petitioner was a "workman" under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 3. The jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the refusal by the Labour Appellate Tribunal and the Industrial Tribunal to exercise jurisdiction: The petitioner challenged the correctness of the order by the Labour Appellate Tribunal, which had dismissed his appeal on the ground that he was not a workman within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The petitioner argued that the Tribunal had wrongly refused to exercise its jurisdiction to award the reliefs he claimed. The Court noted that the notification dated 21-2-1950 did not specify the names of individuals whose cases were to be considered by the Tribunal, leaving it to the employees to cite specific cases. The Industrial Tribunal determined whether the petitioner was a workman, and both the Industrial Tribunal and the Labour Appellate Tribunal held that he was not a workman. Consequently, his case was not covered by the notification, and the Tribunals' refusal to issue directions in favor of the petitioner could not be interfered with. 2. Determination of whether the petitioner was a "workman" under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: The petitioner contended that the determination of whether he was a workman was a preliminary or collateral fact on which the exercise of jurisdiction by the Tribunals depended. The Court rejected this contention, stating that the question of whether the petitioner was a workman was intrinsic to the dispute referred to the Tribunal. The determination of this fact was within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and the Tribunal had the authority to decide it. The Court emphasized that the decision on such a matter by a tribunal in the exercise of its jurisdiction could not be challenged by a writ of certiorari, even if the determination was incorrect. 3. The jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution: The Court referred to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Ebrahim Aboobakar v. Custodian General of Evacuee Property, New Delhi, which held that a writ of certiorari could not be issued to quash the decision of an inferior court within its jurisdiction on the ground that the decision was wrong. The Court explained that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to determine whether the petitioner was a workman, and as long as it had jurisdiction, it could determine that fact rightly or wrongly. The Court also cited several cases to support the view that the determination of a fact which was part of the very issue referred to the Tribunal could not be challenged by a writ of certiorari. The Court concluded that the question of whether the petitioner was a workman was within the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal and the Labour Appellate Tribunal, and their decision could not be interfered with by a writ of certiorari. Conclusion: The petition was dismissed as the Court found that the determination of whether the petitioner was a workman was within the jurisdiction of the Tribunals, and their decision could not be challenged by a writ of certiorari. The Court held that the Tribunals had the authority to decide the matter and their decision, whether right or wrong, could not be interfered with by the High Court.
|
