THOMAS Vs. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three petitions are under Art.226, and seek to vary the orders by the petitioners employer. The petitioner in O.P. 455 of 1958 has been the Manager of the Fertilisers & Chemicals, Travancore Limiteds branch office at Cochin. He claims to have been promoted to the post on September 1, 1957, in view of his efficiency, integrity and seniority in service, and to be then drawing the salary of Rs. 300 in the scale of

(2.) The petitioner in O.P. 501/58 had been promoted from November 1, 1957, as an Assistant Foreman in the Ammonia Plant of the same Company, and was drawing as salary Rs. 215 plus Rs. 46 on a scale of Rs. 200-320, but on May 9, 1958 has been reverted as Senior Operator, and one K.V. John promoted in his place. The petitioner claims the aforesaid reversion to have been caused by the unlawful interference of the District Labour Officer through his award of March 14, 1958, and the employer to have acted on the basis of certain findings in the aforesaid award, which has been made in consequence of the earlier award mentioned already. This writ petition has been filed against the Industrial Tribunal, the Employer, the District Labour Officer, the President of the F.A.C.T. Employees Association, K.V. John who had been promoted to the place of the petitioner and the State of Kerala, and avers the award by the Labour Officer as well as the award by the first respondent to be ultra vires, illegal and liable to be vacated in exercise of the powers under Art.226.

(3.) The writ petitioner in O. P. 574 of 1958 states that he was acting as an Assistant foreman in the Ammonia Plant of the Fertilisers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd., had been so acting for six months from November 8, 1958, and had been reverted, one Philip John, who was working as Senior Operator till then under the writ petitioner, being appointed in the place. The aforesaid order is claimed to have resulted in the reduction of rank, to have affected the petitioners pay, allowances, as well as further prospects, and to have been caused by the award by the Labour Officer, Alwaye, and not due to the voluntary action on the part of the Management. This petition also treats the award as part of the earlier award by the Industrial Tribunal that was published in the Gazette of February 25, 1958, and seeks to vacate both on grounds of their being ultra vires, illegal and without jurisdiction. The petition further avers the action by the employer to be merely consequential and liable to fall with the award. There are six respondents to this petition, five of whom having been already impleaded in the two petitions mentioned above, and the fifth being the employee, who has been substituted for the writ petitioner. It is obvious that complaints by the aforesaid employees against the awards by the Labour Tribunal as well as against the report by the Labour Officer are common and so their averments that the actions by the second respondent and the orders against each of the three petitioners are mere consequences of the illegal awards, which are beyond the powers conferred by the Industrial Disputes Act No. XIV of 1947. It is equally clear that should immediate orders against the petitioners be treated as those of the private individual, the prayer for a writ of certiorari would fail; for it is well settled that neither certiorari nor prohibition would be granted to vacate orders of private tribunals.