THE STATE OF MADRAS V C.P. SARATHY
AIR 1953 SC 53
FACTS
Proceedings in the case arose from a charge sheet filed by the Police under Section 29 against the first respondent, as he failed to implement certain terms of the award dated 15.12.1947 made by the Industrial tribunal.
The first respondent raised a preliminary objection before the Magistrate that the latter had no jurisdiction to proceed with the enquiry because the award on which the prosecution was based was ultra vires and void on the ground that the reference to the Industrial Tribunal which resulted in the award was not made by the Government in accordance with the requirements of Section 10 of the Act.
The magistrate refused to deal with this objection, so the first respondent applied to the High Court under Article 226 for a writ of certiorari to quash the proceedings,
The second respondent herein was the South Indian Cinema Employees Association which was a registered trade union whose members were employees of various cinema companies carrying on business in the State of Madras. This association had submitted a list of certain demands against their employers to the Labour commissioner of Madras, who had been appointed as the conciliation officer under the Act.
After meeting the representatives of the employees and the employers the Labour Commissioner suggested on 28.04.1947 suggested certain” minimum terms” which he invited both sides to accept. The managers of six cinema companies in the city including “Prabhat Talkies” agreed to accept the terms but the management of other companies did not intimate acceptance or non-acceptance. Following this, a meeting of the employees of four cinema companies including that of Prabhat Talkies was convened. Therein 94 out of 139 workers attended the meeting and a resolution was passed that no action be taken on the demands of the Association as the management of their companies has agreed to look into the grievances of the workers
However as all the employers had not accepted the demands of the Labour Commissioner, the representatives of the Association met the officer and reported that the association had decided to go on a strike if their demands were not conceded.
As the conciliation proceedings of the Labour Commissioner failed to bring about any settlement he made a report to the State Government as required by Section 12(4) of the Act stating the steps taken by him to effect a settlement and why they proved unsuccessful.
Thereafter the Government constituted an Industrial Tribunal and directed that this Industrial dispute be referred to this industrial tribunal.
Notices were sent to all the 24 cinema companies and to the Association calling upon them to file statements of their respective cases. It was claimed on behalf of some of the companies including “Prabhat talkies” that so far as they were concerned there was no dispute between the management and their employees and hence they should not be included in the reference or the award.
The Tribunal however repelled this argument and accordingly held that none of the cinema companies should be “removed from the ambit of this industrial dispute and adjudication”.It held that the idyllic picture of industrial peace and contentment put forward by the first respondent company was not justified by the evidence.
The tribunal finally passed its award on 15.12.1947.
CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT
1) The government had no jurisdiction to make the reference in question as there was no dispute between the management and workers of “Prabhat Talkies” and, therefore, the reference and the award insofar as they related to the first respondent were ultra vires and void
2) Notification by the Government to refer an industrial dispute to the Tribunal was not competent under the Act, as it did not refer to any specific disputes as arising for adjudication and did not mention the companies or firms in which the disputes are said to have existed or were apprehended.
HIGH COURT
There is no mention of the existence of any dispute between the petitioner (the first respondent herein) and his workmen.In fact there was no dispute to be referred to a Tribunal so far as this petitioner is concerned. Hence when there was no jurisdiction to make any reference, therefore the whole reference and the award were both invalid and not binding on the petitioner
ISSUE
1If there actually existed an industrial dispute for it to be referred to the Industrial Tribunal? If the Government had jurisdiction to refer the dispute to the Tribunal?
2)Was there a requirement to mention the details like specific dispute, the companies involved by the Government under its reference?
HELD (SUPREME COURT)
Issue1
There existed an industrial dispute at the relevant time. The terms accepted by the first respondent were what the Commissioner called “the minimum terms” and were by no means the same as the demands put forward by the Association, which were never accepted by the Association.
The High Court has said that their existed no dispute as far as the petitioner was concerned and hence the whole reference and the award were invalid and not binding on the Petitioner.The view by the Learned Judges however did not give regard to the word ”or is apprehended” in Section 10(1).The Government while referring may not have looked into the conditions of each establishment individually. Still, it must have been considered that the dispute which affected the workmen collectively existed in the cinema industry. Even if such a dispute had not actually arisen in a particular establishment, it could be apprehended having regard to the collective nature of the industry.
Therefore it cannot be said that the Government had no jurisdiction to make the reference and that the award was not binding.
Issue 2
In making a reference under Section 10(1) the Government is doing an administrative act. The Court cannot canvas the order of reference closely to see if there was any material before the Government as if it is some judicial or quasi-judicial determination.
Moreover to maintain industrial peace, many a time it is necessary for the government to take decisions without delay. It may not always be possible for the Government to particularise the dispute in its order of reference.
So for the Government to maintain industrial peace and production it must have the power to set in motion the machinery of settlement without stopping to enquire for the specific points the contending parties are quarreling about, as denying this would seriously detract from the usefulness of the statutory machinery under Section 10(1).
Order of the High Court was set aside and the First Respondent’s Petition dismissed