PAPPAMMAL ANNACHATRAM Vs. LABOUR COURT MADURAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal, filed under the Letters Patent, is directed against he judgment of veeraswami, J. , in Writ Petn. No. 1222 of 1959, which was filed by Pappammal annachatram by its trustee T. K. Subramania Pillai for the issue of a writ under Art. 226 of the Constitution, quashing the order, dated 17th October 1959 passed by the presiding officer, Labour Court, Madurai, in Industrial Dispute No. 49 of 1959. The prior facts necessary for he consideration of this appeal can be set down briefly.

(2.) A lady by name Pappammal endowed certain lands as well s a Chatram, several years ago. For the express object of feeding poor desantries (pilgrims from distant places ). Subsequently, the charge was extended to give free boarding and lodging for about 225 poor students. The establishment of the Chatram is a small one and consists of three clerks and three cooks. Respondent 3 in the writ petition, one M. Sivaswami, who was one of these clerks, was dismissed by the trustees on certain charges of misfeasance ad misconduct. Thereafter, the tiruchirapalli Hotel Workers' Union, which admittedly included none of the employees under the Pappammal Annachatram except the aforesaid Sivaswami, took on itself the duty of sponsoring he case of Sivaswami, and thereafter he State government of Madras refereed the question of the dismissal of Sivaswami to the labour Court, Madurai for adjudication treating it as an industrial dispute. Before the Labour Court, Madurai, the trustees of the Chatram raised a specific plea that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim, and that here was no industrial dispute within the meaning of the Industrial disputes Act of 1947. The Labour Court held that it had jurisdiction to decide the dispute, and held hat the dismissal of Sivaswami was illegal, and directed that he should be restored to his employment and paid a portion no of the back-wages due to him. Against the above order, the trustee filed the writ petition before this Court, for a writ of certiorari.

(3.) THREE points were raised before the learned Judge, in support of the petition. They were: