GEORGE PETER C Vs. ITS WORKMEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal seeks to vary the decision by a learned Judge of this Court, whereby he had rejected the appellant's petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The facts culminating in the appeal to this Court can be briefly stated.

(2.) SIXTY-TWO workers of the appellant's factory, called C. George Peter Coir Factory, Alleppey, filed an application before the authority under the Payment of Wages Act IV of 1936, averring that they were entitled to leave with wages, balance bonus, lay-off compensation, notice pay, and retrenchment compensation, on the ground of closure of the factory, which was not bona fide. The claim was filed under Section 15 of the Act, which authorizes determination of the question whether the payment of wages has been wrongly withheld. The authority on 6 June 1959 allowed the application, holding the appellant liable on account of the aforesaid claims to pay Rs. 21,474-2-6. It is common ground that under Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, an appeal lies to the District Court, but the appellant did not avail of the right to appeal, and instead filed the writ petition in this Court on 5 March 1959. The petition was filed in this Court after the period of appeal had expired; and the learned Judge, after notice to the representative of the 62 workers and the authority, who had made the order, declined to exercise his discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 on the ground that the failure to appeal precludes the appellant's claiming the discretionary relief under Article 226.

(3.) THE appellant's learned Advocate has urged that the learned Judge has erred in declining to exercise his powers and in holding the case not to be fit, in which a writ of certiorari could be issued. Now the proposition of law is well-settled that failure to avail oneself of the statutory right of appeal is not always fatal to the writ of certiorari being issued. The circumstances under which the failure would not be treated as precluding a party from asking the writ, have been stated by the Supreme Court in Uttar Pradesh State v. Mohd. Nooh A. I. R. 1958 B. C. 86 at 94 to be at follows: On the authorities referred to above, it appears to us that there may conceivably be oases--and the instant case is in point-where the error, irregularity or Illegality touching jurisdiction or procedure committed by an inferior Court or tribunal of first Instance is as patent and loudly obtrusive that it leaves on its decision an indelible stamp of Infirmity or vice which cannot be obliterated or cured on appeal or revision. If an inferior Court or tribunal of first instance acts wholly without jurisdiction or patently in excess of jurisdiction or manifestly conducts the proceedings before it in a manner which is contrary to the rules of natural justice and all accepted rules of procedure and which offends the superior Court's sense of fair play, the superior Court may, we think, quite properly exercise its power to issue the prerogative writ of certiorari to correct the error of the Court or the tribunal of first instance, even if an appeal to another Inferior Court or tribunal was available and recourse was not had to it or if recourse was bad to it, it confirmed what ex facie was a nullity for reasons aforementioned. This would toe so all the more If the tribunal's holding the original trial and the tribunals hearing the appeal or revision were merely departmental tribunals composed of persons belonging to the departmental hierarchy without adequate legal training and background and whose glaring lapses occasionally come to our notice. The superior Court will ordinarily decline to interfere by issuing certiorari and all we say is that in a proper case of the bind mentioned above, it has the power to do so and may and should exercise it. We say no more than that.