NARAYANAN NAMBOODIRIPAD Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition for a writ of certiorari to quash a reference, made by the first respondent - the State of Kerala -- under S.10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereafter to be referred to as the Act, to the second respondent - the Labour Court, at Kozhikode -- for a decision of the question "whether the dismissal of 23 workmen by the management of Anangamala Estate was proper and justified and if not, to what reliefs the workmen are entitled", and for a writ of prohibition to the Labour Court to forbear from proceeding further with the reference. The petitioner is the head and manager of the Kanjoor Mana which owns an item of property about 236 acres in extent. Out of this, an area of 47 acres had been cleared and developed, and fruit bearing trees of various kinds had been planted thereon, including 10 acres under coffee plantation. A dispute seems to have arisen between the petitioner and the 23 workmen, who were represented by Anangamala Coffee Estate Thozhilali Union, and the reference was made, as if, it constituted an industrial dispute within the meaning of the Act. The petitioner's contentions appear to be, that he is not carrying on an industry within the definition in S.2(j) of the Act, -and that there is no relationship of employer and employees between him. and the workmen.

(2.) The learned counsel, who appeared for the first respondent, took a preliminary objection before me, that the order of reference is administrative in character, and no writ of certiorari can issue to quash it, and that before the Labour Court has adjudicated as to its jurisdiction to entertain the reference, this court ought not to issue a writ of prohibition under Article 226. The position is well settled, that an order of reference under S.10 of the Act, is administrative in character and no certiorari can issue to quash it. This point is covered by a bench decision of this court in O. P. 371 of 1957 and I hold, that no, certiorari can issue to quash the reference.

(3.) The same case is also authority for the position that "when the decision of the question whether an order of reference was made with jurisdiction, depends on investigation of disputed facts, it would not be proper for the court to interfere by a writ of prohibition". It is only necessary to consider, whether this is a case falling within the scope of the dictum referred to above; in other words, whether the jurisdictional issue depends on the investigation of disputed facts.