NAIR SERVICE SOCIETY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CERTAIN disputes between the petitioner,a registered Society(and the Managing Editor of a newspaper called 'Malayali ') and the 3rd respondent,one of its employees relating to arrears of wages and gratuity were referred by the Government under section 17(2)of the Working Journalists(Condition of Services)and Miscellaneous Pro­visions Act,1955,( referred to as the Journalists 'Act,for short)to the Labour Court,Quil on, for decision as Refer­ences 1 and 2 of 1966.The petitioner's allegation is that pursuant to the reference an enquiry was held,evidence was taken,and after hearing,the cases stood posted to 4th May 1967,but that to his knowledge,no orders were passed on that day or any subsequent day,nor communicated to the petitioner.Nor according to the petitioner,was the 'award 'of the Labour Court published.In spite of these,the petitioner was served with Ext.P -2,notice,dated 3rd January 1 968,by the Tahsildar,Changanacherry to remit Rs.535 the amount due under Reference No.2 of 1966 to the 3rd respondent,and with Ext.P -3 notice in similar terms,for a sum of Rs.3,702.26 in respect of Reference No.1 of 1966.These were replied to by Ext.P -4,and Ext.P -5 by which the Tahsildar was informed that the petitioner had no information about the judgment in the two cases referred to in the notices.Despite these,by Exts.P -6 and P -7,the Tahsildar replied that steps for realisation will be pursued.The petitioner seeks to quash Exts.P -2,P -3 and P -6 and P -7 and the "award " ;,if any,passed by the 2nd respondent in Reference Nos.1 and 2 of 1966 and prays for other con­sequential reliefs.

(2.) A counter -affidavit has been filed by the 3rd respondent.The learned Government Pleader appearing for the other respondents submitted that the Labour Court made its 'decision 'or 'award 'in the two References on 6th June 1967,and forwarded the same to the Government on 7th June 1967;It was admitted however,that a copy of the same has not so far been communicated to the peti­tioner,and also that it has not been published.

(3.) THE petitioner claims the reliefs prayed for firstly on the ground that the "award "of the 2nd respondent had not been published and could not be enforced without publication;and secondly on the ground that the - prin­ciples of natural justice required that a copy of the award or decision should be communicated to the petitioner,before coercive steps were taken in pursuance of the same.The learned Government Pleader and the counsel for the 3rd respondent joined issue and contended that neither publication nor communication was necessary.