Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

In regard to writ petition No. 450 of 1959, the learned Judge hold that he had jurisdiction to entertain the said writ petition even at an interlocutory stage and so, he rejected the preliminary objection raised by the respondents. On the merits, he took the view that what the appellant had done did not amount to a lookout but a closure and so, the substantial part of the dispute between the parties did not amount to an industrial dispute at all. That is why he came to the conclusion that it is only the latter parts of the first and second questions which could be tried by the Tribunal. In the result, the petition filed by the appellant was partly allowed and the Tribunal was directed to deal with only the second part of the two questions framed by the impugned reference. This decision was challenged by the respondents by preferring two appeals before a Division Bench of the Madras High Court. The order passed on W.P. No. 44311959 gave rise to writ appeal No. 85 of 1959, whereas the order passed on writ petition 450/1959 gave rise to writ appeal No. 73 of 1959. The appellate Court has agreed with the trial Judge in holding that the order issued by the Government under s. 10(3) of the Act was ill-advised and without jurisdiction and so, the appellant can with impunity ignore the said order. In regard to the main point of controversy between the parties as to the validity of the reference itself, the Appeal Court took the view that the questions which had to be decided in dealing with the appellant's contention that the reference was invalid, were complex questions of fact and that it would be appropriate that the said questions should be fully investigated and tried in the first instance by the Industrial Tribunal itself. In other words, the Appeal Court held that though; the High Court had jurisdiction to entertain an application for a writ of Prohibition even at the initial stage of the proceedings commenced before a Special tribunal, it would not be proper that a writ of prohibition should be issued unless the dis- puted questions of fact were tried by the said Special Tribunal in the first instance. On this view, the order passed by the trial Judge has been modified and the disputes referred to the Industrial Tribunal for its adjudication have been remitted to the said Tribunal for its disposal in accordance with law. In making this Order, the Appeal Court has indicated the nature of the dispute and the questions of. fact which the Industrial Tribunal may have to try and the limits of its jurisdiction. In the result, the writ apple No.73/1959 succeeded whereas writ appeal No..85/1959 failed. It is this decision of the Court of Appeal that is challenged before us by Mr. Viswanatha Sastri on behalf of the appellant Before dealing with the appeal on the merits, it is necessary to set out very briefly the material facts which led to the present dispute between the parties. The appellant in a Private Limited Liability Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and it carries on the business of printing and publishing newspapers and periodicals, viz., the Indian Express, Sunday Standard (on Sundays), Dinamani, DinamaniKadir, Andhra Prabha, Andhra Prabha Illustrated Weekly, and screen. These papers were being printed and published by the appellant from Madras till the 27th April, 1959. On the 29th April, 1959, the appellant intimated the closure of its business in respect of its various publications at Madras. The announcement made by the appellant in that behalf indicated that its staff and workmen would be paid wages, one month's salary in lieu of notice and compensation as laid down under s.25 (f) and s.25 (fff) of the Act. It was also stated that similar wages and compensation would be paid to journalists under the corresponding provisions of the working Journalist (Conditions of Service and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act,1955. It appears, on the same day, the appellant's Board of Directors resolved to sell items of printing mach- inery and equipment to the Andhra Prabha (Private) Ltd. for Rs.5,25,000/-. Accordingly in the 'Hindu' of the 30th April, 1959, an advertisement was inserted by the appellant under 'the "To-Let" column relating to the office accommodation and premises of the 'Express Newspapers Private Ltd. It is this action of the appellant which as led to the present dispute.