1957 (5) TMI 51 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a writ of certiorari.
2. Validity of the notification dated 27th December 1954.
3. Whether the industry of the petitioner company is a controlled industry.
4. Necessity and existence of industrial dispute for the issuance of the notification.
5. Competence of the Textile Mill Mazdoor Union, Mirzapur, to raise the industrial dispute.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the High Court to Issue a Writ of Certiorari:

The court addressed a preliminary objection regarding its jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari. The Labour Appellate Tribunal of India, which made the appellate decision, had been abolished, and its records were transferred to Bombay, outside the jurisdiction of the court. The court held that since the decision of the Appellate Tribunal had merged with the award of the Adjudicator, the award by itself could not be quashed without quashing the decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal. The court cited Section 16 of the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950, which states that the decision of the Appellate Tribunal, when it becomes enforceable, is deemed to be substituted for the award or decision of the Industrial Tribunal. Therefore, the court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari to quash the decisions in question.

2. Validity of the Notification Dated 27th December 1954:

The notification was challenged on the grounds that it was void and not in accordance with law. The court found that the notification did not incorporate any decision by a judicial or quasi-judicial authority but was an administrative and executive order issued by the State Government under Section 3 of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The court held that a writ of certiorari could not be issued to quash such a notification, as it was not a decision of a judicial or quasi-judicial tribunal.

3. Whether the Industry of the Petitioner Company is a Controlled Industry:

The petitioner company argued that its industry was a controlled industry under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, and thus the Central Government was the appropriate authority for industrial disputes. The court examined the relevant provisions and concluded that although the industry was a controlled industry, it had not been specified by the Central Government for the purposes of Section 2(a)(i) of the Central Industrial Disputes Act. Consequently, the State Government was the appropriate authority, and the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act was applicable.

4. Necessity and Existence of Industrial Dispute for the Issuance of the Notification:

The petitioner contended that there was no actual industrial dispute, and thus the notification was unnecessary. The court held that the necessity of the notification and the existence of an industrial dispute were matters for the subjective satisfaction of the State Government. The court further stated that the factual existence of the dispute and the necessity of making a reference for adjudication could not be challenged in court. The court found that there was sufficient material to support the government's satisfaction regarding the existence of an industrial dispute.

5. Competence of the Textile Mill Mazdoor Union, Mirzapur, to Raise the Industrial Dispute:

The court considered whether the Textile Mill Mazdoor Union, Mirzapur, was competent to raise the industrial dispute. The court noted that the union had referred the dispute to the Regional Conciliation Officer and that there was no evidence to suggest that the union was not competent to take up the dispute on behalf of the retrenched employees. The court concluded that the union was directly interested in the dispute and had the competence to raise it as an industrial dispute.

Conclusion:

The court dismissed the petition, holding that none of the three orders impugned in the writ petition were liable to be quashed. The court assessed costs payable to the opposite parties and concluded that the notification and subsequent decisions were valid and within jurisdiction.