HAYLES EDITOR OF THE MAIL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As Special Industrial Tribunal appointed by the Government of Madras, I adjudicated, while a sitting Judge of this Court, the disputes between the managements and workers of malgamation Ltd. Madras, in their eleven concerns including "The Mail", Madras. My award, which may be marked as Ex. P. 1, was pronounced on 8-2-1954 and notified in the Port St. George Gazette on 12-21954. It was passed substantially on an agreement signed by Mr. Ladden, Chairman of Amalgamations Ltd., and Sri R. Venkataraman, President of the Simpson and Group Companies Workers' Union, by which they settled all their differences in controversy, but left it to me to decide all matters of punishment for misconduct and reinstatement agreeing to accept my decision as anal. I found it necessary to go into the origin and the history of these disputes in my award. In "The Mail" of the 5th of April, in the leading editorial with the caption "He is Right' there appeared the following extract as regards which I issued a rule to the Editor of the Mail to appear before me and show cause why action should not be taken against him for criticism in contempt of the Tribunal by a party to the dispute:

(2.) Mr. Hayles, the Editor of the "Mail" appeared before me in response to this rule on 14-4-1954 represented also by Sri Govind Swaminathan as his counsel, who incidentally appeared for Amalgamations Ltd., and the managements in the adjudication proceedings. Toe statement filed by Mr. Hayles on Sri Govind Swaminathan's advice is so remarkable that it may be set out in extenso:

(3.) Mr. Govind Swaminathan in support of this statement challenged at the Bar of this Court my jurisdiction to issue this Rule. Not merely this, he flatly and contumaciously declined to argue any question either of law or Jurisdiction before me on the ground that I was 'functus officio' as Industrial Tribunal. He was finally not even prepared either to admit or deny that the passage extracted in the Rule related to my adjudication of this dispute and declined to answer any questions arising on the Rule.