S GOVIND SWAMINATHAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal is against an order of Mack J.- while presiding over the Second Criminal Sessions of the High Court. The learned Judge held that the appellant had committed 'ex facie' contempt of court on 30-4-1954, and affording to the appellant an opportunity to show cause why he should not be committed for contempt found him guilty and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 1000. The appeal is against this order of Mack J. convicting the appellant and sentencing him to the punishment abovementioned.

(2.) We are not now concerned with the details of the contempt alleged or the merits of the Contentions raised by the appellant in this appeal, as the question which we have now to decide merely relates to a preliminary objection that the appeal itself is incompetent under C1ause 15 of the Letters Patent.

(3.) In order to appreciate how the case has arisen it would be convenient to set out in brief outline the matters that led to the present proceedings. Mr. Justice Mack was appointed by the State of Madras under Section 7, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as the sole member of an Industrial. Tribunal to adjudicate upon an industrial dispute which existed between the workers and the management of a concern known as the Amalgamation Ltd. After the award was delivered and the same was published by the State Government under Section 17, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, certain, comments appeared in the "Madras ' Mail" a newspaper published in the city which was one of the concerns which was a party to the dispute before the learned Judge sitting as an Industrial Tribunal. The learned Judge considering these comments to be in the nature of a contempt of himself issued notice to the Editor of the said newspaper. The appellant who is the State prosecutor of Madras and who appeared as counsel for the employers before the industrial Tribunal --including the newspaper "The Madras Mail" -- filed an answer to this notice denying the jurisdiction of the learned Judge to deal with the newspaper for contempt and also denying that the article constituted any contempt. When this matter was being enquired into by Mack J. on 14-4-1954, the learned Judge took exception to the manner in which counsel refused to answer certain questions put to him and directed that notice be given to him to show cause why proceedings for contempt should not be initiated against him for declining to answer these questions. Thereupon the appellant filed an application before this court for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the proceedings before Mack J. as an Industrial Tribunal as beyond his Jurisdiction. A Bench of this court admitted this application and directed stay of proceedings before Mack J. As the questions raised by the appellant in the writ of certiorari were of great Importance, Mack J. agreed to refer the question of his Jurisdiction to a Pull Bench and the stay of proceedings before him was dissolved. In pursuance of this, Mack J. referred the question of his Jurisdiction to deal with the alleged contempt in the newspaper and the conduct of the counsel before him on 14-4-1954 to a Full Bench. The matter has been heard and is pending judgment.