PALACE ADMINISTRATION BOARDTRIPUNITHURA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition by the Palace Administration Board, Tripunithura. The petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order quashing an order dated 9-6-1958 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Ernakulam, and also for a writ of prohibition or other appropriate writ or order directing the Industrial Tribunal not to proceed with the adjudication of Industrial Dispute No. 25 of 1958. The three respondents are the State of Kerala. the Industrial Tribunal, Ernakulam, and the V.T.K. Estate and Palace Fund Employees Union, Tripunithura, respectively.

(2.) The facts necessary for the decision of the petition may be stated. The V.T.K. Estate or the Valiamma Thampuran Kovilakam Estate consists of properties belonging.to the Royal family of Cochin, the income of which was utilised for the maintenance of the ladies and minor members of the Royal family. Originally the Estate was under the management of the seniormost lady of the Royal family. The Palace Fund was one constituted by the Government of Cochin for the maintenance of junior ladies of the Royal family. By a Royal Proclamation promulgated by the Maharaja of Cochin in 1929, the management of the Estate and the Palace Fund was assumed by the Government of Coehin. Just before the integration of the States of Travancore and Cochin, the Maharaja of Cochin promulgated another Proclamation on 29th June 1949 by which the Palace Administration Board was constituted to manage the Estate and the Palace Fund. The Proclamation declares this Board as a body corporate, having perpetual succession and a common seal. The third respondent is a Union of the employees of the Board. There were disputes between the Union and the Board and the Government of Kerala by order dated 10-3-1958 referred the same for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ernakulam. The Board raised a preliminary point before the Tribunal that it had no jurisdiction to proceed with the enquiry as the Board was not carrying on any industry as defined in the Industrial Disputes Act. It was contended that the dispute would not therefore fall within the scope of the Industrial Disputes Act. The second respondent, the Tribunal, overruled this contention by an order dated 9-6-1958, copy of which has been produced as Ext. P-3. This is the order sought to be quashed by the petitioner,

(3.) The decision of this petition depends on the construction of the word "industry" in the Industrial Disputes Act, XIV of 1947. Section 2(k) defines "industrial dispute" as follows: "(k) "Industrial dispute" means any dispute or difference between employers and employees, or between employers and workmen, or between workmen and workmen, which is connected with the employment or non-employment or the terms of employment or with the conditions of labour, of any person." Clause (j) of Section 2 defines "industry" as ''any business, trade, undertaking, manufacture or calling of employers and includes any calling, service, employment, handicraft, or industrial occupation or avocation of workmen." According to the Tribunal the work carried on by the Board is an "undertaking" as defined in the Act, and this is the position taken up by the respondents in. This petition.