LexTHE MANAGEMENT OF NEWSPAPER EXPRESS LTD. versus WORKERS & STAFF EMPLOYED UNDER IT AND OTHERS .
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
. JB9JI • 540 SUPREME COURTR EPORTS [1963] THE MANAGEMENT OF NEWSPAPER8 EXPRESS LTD. v. WORKERS & STAFF EMPLOY.GD UNDER IT AND OTHERS . (P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. C. DAS GUPTA and J. R. MuDHOLKAR, JJ.) Industrial Dispute-Validity of reference-Lockout or cl?BUre-Whether industrial dispute-Determination of jurisdi- ctional fact by Trib1tnal -High Court's power to issue writ -Order of reference-Fair and reasonable construction--Cosn. titution of India. Art. 226-Industrial Dispute1 Act, 1947 (14 a/1947), ss. 10 (1) (d), 10 (3), (4). , The appellant is a private limited company and it carries on the business.of printing and publishing newspapers and periodicals, In 1959 the appellants intimated the closure of its business in respect of its various publication at Madras. On the same day the appellant's Board of Directors resolved to sell items· of printing ·machinery and equipment to one private limited company and the next day the appellant inserted advertisement in a local newspaper announcing that the premises of the appellant is «To let". Thereafter the respond- ents •truck work. The Government at this stage issued two orders. By one of these orders the Government referred the dispute to Industrial Tribunal under s. 10 ( l) (d) of ·the Industrial Disputes Act. The other order which was under •.10 (3) of the Act prohibited the continuance of the strike and lockout in the appellants concern. The appellant thereupon filed two writ petitions against the above orders of the Government. Both petition• were heard together by a Single Judge who held that since the order under '· 10 (3) was a mere administrative order it was not open to the Court to quash it but since that order was not without jurisdi- ction the appellant was entitled to ignore it. With regard to the other writ petition he held that the High Court had jurisdiction to entertain it even at an ·interlocutory stage and on the merits of the case he found that the action of the appellant did not amount to a lockout but a closure and the di•pute between the parties was not an industrial dispute. The respondents then preferred two appeals to the Division Bench concerning the order of the Government under s. 10 (3) the P!v!sion Bench upheld the decision if the Single Bench ~ncj , . - ,. . 3 S.".R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS dismissed the appeal. With regard to the other appeal it help that ev.en though the High Court had .jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition since the deterniination of the question whether the reference was valid or not involved many compli- cated questions of fact the matter must be fully investigated and• tried in the first instance by the Tribunal. The appellant then appealed to th,is Court. The main contention raised in the appeal was that since the action.of the appellant did not amount to a lockout but a closure there .was no industrial dispute. That being the position the reference was invalid and the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to embark on the proposed enquiry. The next contention was that issue No. 1 in the reference which related to transfer of the publication anct business of the appellant was on the face of it bad since the appellant was entitled to make such transfer and the respond· ents;had no right to raise an industrial .dispute ·With ·regard to such transfer. Thirdly it was urged that the wording of issue No. 2 showed that the Govrnment had already determined the question raised by that issue and there was ·nothing left to the decision of the Tribunal. Held, that if the Industrial Tribunal proceeds to assume jurisdiction over a non-industrial dispute that can be successfu- lly challenged before the High Court by a petition for . an appropriate writ. The finding on the preliminary issue• whether an action of a party amounts to a lockout or a closure is a finding on a jurisdic~ional fact. It is only when it is found that the action amounts to a lockout that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to deal with the merits of the dispute. As a general rule it is not proper or appropriate that the initial jurisdiction of a special tribunal to deal with juris· dictional facts should be circumvented· and the decision of such a preliminary issue brought before the High Court on its writ jurisdiction. On the facts and circumstances of the cace it would be idle to contend that issue No. 1 related to the transfer of business which could not be the subject matter
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.