9911796707
TMI Blog1952 (11) TMI 20X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etc., during his period of suspension. This award was enforced and the petitioner was re-employed by the Bank. He was paid all his duos, except the amounts which accrued to him as annual increments in salary and the consequential increase in the dear food allowance. Certain other relief arising out of an award of the All India Industrial Tribunal (Bank Disputes), Bombay, was also not granted to him. The petitioner then represented his case again but this time to the Union Government through the U. P. Bank Employees Union. While these proceedings were going on, the petitioner was dismissed by the Bank on 9-9-1950. The petitioner thereupon took his case of wrongful dismissal also to the Central Government. Under a notification, dated 21-2-1950, the Government of India referred an industrial dispute to the Industrial Tribunal at Calcutta for adjudication and it is the case of the petitioner that, under this order, his case was also referred to that Tribunal. The Tribunal, however, held that the petitioner was not a workman within the meaning of that word as used in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and, consequently, refused to pass any orders in favour of the petitioner. The pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bunal. The notification left the specific cases to be cited by the employees. If any particular case was cited by the employees, it is clear that it was the function of the Industrial Tribunal itself to deter. mine whether the individual, whoso name was mentioned before it, was or was not a workman. It has been contended before us that, under Section 10, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, it was for the Central Government itself to specify whether the persons, whose cases were being referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal were or were not workmen. It is not necessary for us to express any opinion on the question whether it was incumbent on the Central Government to make such specification. If it be the contention of the petitioner that the notification of 21-2-1950 was not in accordance with the provisions of Section 10, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, he cannot claim any writ of cortiorari from this Court, directing the Industrial Tribunal at Calcutta or the Labour Appellate Tribunal to give an adjudication in his case. On this contention, the proper remedy for the petitioner would be to move the Central Government to make a separate reference of his case. On the other ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot named the individual workmen whose cases were to be referred to the Tribunal. According to the notification, the employees were to mention the cases of these workmen. It is obvious that it could not have been left to the employee to determine whether he was a workman or not, and the Government itself had not decided the question. The only authority, therefore, that was to decide the question could be the Tribunal itself and nobody else. The question, therefore, could not be said to be a collateral matter, but was one which was referred to the Tribunal for its decision and was intrinsic to the matter which was for decision before the Tribunal. In order to grant any relief to a particular individual, it was essential for the Tribunal to find a number of facts. The first fact to be found by the Tribunal was whether the individual was a workman; the next was whether there had been a retrenchment, discharge or dismissal of such a workman; and, in the alternative, there had to be a determination of the question whether there was stoppage of increments or withholding of promotions. These were all questions that were specifically referred for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g. The learned Master of the Bolls classified the cases under two categories as follows: When an inferior Court or tribunal or body which has to exercise the power of deciding facts, is first established by Act of Parliament, the Legislature has to consider what powers it will give that tribunal or body. It may, in effect, say that, if a certain state of facts exists and is shown to such tribunal or body before it proceeds to do certain things, it shall have jurisdiction to do such things but not otherwise. There it is not for them conclusively to decide whether that state of facts exists, and, if they exercise the jurisdiction without its existence, what they do may be questioned, and it will be held that they have acted without jurisdiction. 'But there is another state of things which may exist. The Legislature may entrust the tribunal or body with a jurisdiction which includes the jurisdiction to determine whether the preliminary state of facts exists, as well as the jurisdiction', on finding that it does exist, to proceed further or do something more. When the Legislature are establishing such a tribunal or body with limited jurisdiction, they also have to con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. The lower Court must, indeed, decide as to the collateral fact, in the first instance; but the superior Court may upon certiorari inquire into the correctness of the decision, and may quash the proceedings in the lower Court if such decision is erroneous, or at any rate, if there is no evidence to support it. On the other hand, if the fact in question be not collateral, but a part of the very issue which the lower Court has to inquire into, certiorari will not be granted, although the lower Court may have arrived at an erroneous conclusion with regard to it. In the case before us also, the question whether the petitioner was or was not a workman was a part of the very issues which the Industrial Tribunal had to decide under the notification, dated 21-2-1950, which granted jurisdiction to it. 7. In Rex v. Woodhouse (1903) 2 K. B. 501 Vaughan-Williams L. J. held as follows : Objections founded on the personal incompetency of the Judge, or on the nature of the subject-matter, or on the absence of some essential preliminary, must obviously, in most cases, depend upon matters which, whether apparent on the face of the proceedings or brought before the superior Court by a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cation by the Magistrates on that question was not open to challenge by a writ of certiorari. 10. All these cases cited above clearly support the view taken by us that, in this case, the question whether the petitioner was or was not a workman was a question for decision within the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal at Calcutta and the Labour Appellate Tribunal; and, whether that decision be right or wrong, that decision cannot be removed by a writ of cortiorari. 11. On behalf of the petitioner, reliance was placed on the remarks of Lord Luxmoore In re Ripon (Highfield) Rousing Order (1939) 11 ALL ER.548. Lord Luxmoore, in his judgment, nowhere differed from the views of the various Judges in the cases mentioned above; and, in fact, he applied the test which had been laid down by Lord Esher, Master of the Bolls, in the case of Reg. v. Gommrs. for Special Purposes of the Income Tax (1888) 21 Q. B. D. 313. The case before him arose out of proceedings under the Housing Act, 1936. The Act permitted local authorities to make an order for compulsory purchase of land, after confirmation by the Minister of Health, for housing purposes. Section 75 of the Act placed a limitation o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... part of a park to the local authority or the Minister. It only laid down a statutory prohibition against acquisition of land which formed part of a park and, consequently, the fact whether it was or was not part of a park could be determined by the Court dealing with the petition for a writ of certiorari. He did not disagree with the remarks of Swift J. that the position is different in cases where the statute, in express terms, makes local authority the judge of the question, on a decision of which the local authority could pass the orders under the statute. In the case before us, we have already indicated that the notification of 21-2-1950, read with Section 10, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, clearly laid upon the Industrial Tribunal at Calcutta the duty to determine whether the petitioner was or was not a workman and consequently, even if a wrong decision was given, that decision cannot be interfered with by a writ of certiorari. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner pressed various grounds before us to show that the decision that the petitioner was not a workman was incorrect. One of the grounds was that there had been a previous decision by an adjudicator appointed in purs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
