MICHAEL VILLAVARAYAR Vs. WORKMEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two petitions are filed under Art. 226 of the constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari directed against the presiding officer of the Labour court Madurai. As the points in dispute are identical they were heard together with the consent of parties.

(2.) THE petitioner, Michael Villavarayar, in W. P. No 176 of 1960, and the petitioner, correra and Bors, in W. P. No. 209 of 1960 are boat owners in Tuticorin, on certain charges after issuing the necessary "show cause notice' they dismissed form employment Michael Fernando, and Santhacrus Fernando, tindals in their service, engaged for the running of piratical boats. In Tuticoring there is a labour union called the Boatmens's Union Tuticorin. They took up the cause of the dismissed tindals, Thereafter, the Government of Madras in two G. , Os. Referred the issue of the valid termination of the services of these tindals as an industrial dispute to the labor court at Madurai for adjudication under the Industrial Disputes act (Central Act XIV of 1947 ). Before the labour court, the management urged as a preliminary ground that the court did not have jurisdiction but their objections were overruled and the court decided to proceed with the inquiry. Thereupon, the petitioners have come to this court with the present petitions for the issue of a writ to quash the finding of the labour court.

(3.) THE petitioners urged the following grounds; The term "tindal" does not satisfy the definition of 'workman' in Sec. 2 (S) of the Industrial Disputes Act. He has got the sole control over a boat once it is take to sea, over its crew and over its freight In this manner his position is similar to that of a captain or Manager of a sea going vessel. Though he may discharge duties of a supervisory nature still he falls within the exception to Sec. 2 (S) of the Industrial Disputes Act. (2) In substance this is only a private dispute between the management and a worker in is employ. It has not the backing of a substantial majority of the labour union Therefore, the dispute cannot be described as an industrial dispute. (3) On a prior occasion, when the dispute between the Boat Workers' union and their management came up before the Industrial Tribunal at madurai at the time of the pendency of an appeal form its order, a compromise was entered into Under the terms of the compromise even if it is assumed that a tindal is a workman a dispute of the present kind has to be referred for decision to a board of arbitrators, specially provided for, in that agreement. Consequently, the reference to the labour court in the present case is illegal.