ATMA RAM Vs. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in this case are the trustees of a body known as Delhi Cloth Market Trust Committee (hereinafter called "The Trust"). It appears that the trust has been maintaining a staff consisting of 16Chaukidars,ll Sweepers, electricians, I Clerk and 2 Munims. A dispute relating to certain general demands of these employees having arisen, between the management of the Trust and the employees, the same was referred for adjuaication to the Industrial Tribunal. Delhi.. In answer to the claim of the employees, it was contended on behalf of the Trust, by way of preliminary objection, that it was not an industry within the meaning of section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act. By an interim award, dated 12th of January, 1965, the Industrial Tribunal, Delhi has held that this contention of the Trust was wrong and that it was an industry falling within the definition of section 2(j) of. the Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioners in this case are the trustees, who constitute the body of the Trust, and have. come up to this court with a prayer that a writ in the nature of certbrarior any other appropriate writ, direction or order may hi issued to quash the interim award of the Industrial Tribunal, on the ground that the trust is infact not an 'industry' and the Tribunal, therefore, has no jurisdiction over it.

(2.) Placing reliance on Syei Yakoob v. Radhakrishtun, ths learned counsel lor the respondents workmen, has urge i that this Court is not competent to grant the writ prayed for because the order of the Industrial Tribunal is one passed by it in exercise of a Jurisdiction conferred on it by valid provisions of law and the conclusions recorded therein are based on findings of facts, which it is not open to the petitioner to canvass n these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. The argument loses sight of the fact that the very jurisdiction of the Tribunal in this case depended on the correct determination of the preliminary Jurisdictional issue raised before it and it is not disputed before me that if the petitioners are found to be not an industry within the meaning of section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the whole reference before the Tribunal will fall through. My attention has not been drawn to any provision in the Act, which confers any power on the Tribunal to determine conclusively questions relating to its own Jurisdiction. Even though the Tribunal is entitled to decide whether it has jurisdiction or not, but that does not take away the power of supervision of the High Court to see that the Tribunal acts within its own jurisdiction and does not assume jurisdiction by wrongly deciding the ]urisdictional issue. The law is well-settled that in a such a case this court is competent to examine the issue raised. Reference in this connection may with advantage, be made to the following passage in United Beedi Workers' Union, Salem v. 5. Ahmed Hussan and. Sons and others,

(3.) According to the findings of the Tribunal, the Trust came into being some time in the year 1929 What happend was that, as a result of the shifting of the capital of India from Calcutta to Delhi, a small group of traders secured a piece of open land situated near the main market centre of the city, and also near its main railway station, with a view to build a new big market. I he land, thus secured, was devided into plots and on these plots, a large number of shops and residential flats were constructed by pooling common resources of the persons, who had acquired the land and also of others, who came forward to Join hands with them thereafter (hereinafter collectively called the shareholders". A spacious and fort-like market-cum-residential area was thus brought into being by them with lanes and gangways properly paved and set up. This building is what is now commonly known as Delhi Cloth Market. The market had three big gates, and the whole area w as bound by pucca walls of buildings, which formed part of the market itself. Each separate building in the market was conveyed with its appertaining proprietary rights in favour of individual shareholders, but there remained certain parts of the property, by way of forners and triegiulars and other small commoon portions, including rcoms above the gates, the common corridors and stair-cases etc. which could not be owned and possessed individually by the cosharers. These portions were a sort of left-overs' of this property and the same were therefore retained by The shareholders as their common property. With a view to look after this common property, the shareholders formed themselves into a trust in the year 1929 and appointed a committee to manage the same. It is this committee of the Trust, which has filed this petition through its trustees. All the members of the Trust have their proprtyin the market. The committee, the award says, derives income from the rents received by.it by the Jetting out of the common portions overs' of the joint property, as described above, and also earned from the amount of the reserves (which, however, derable), and incurs expenses for the management of the of this income.