RADHAKRISHNA MILLS (POLLACHI) LTD. Vs. STATE OF MADRAS, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES, LABOUR AND CO-OPERATION AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner applied under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari to set aside the Order of the Government Ms. No. 1086 dated 26th April, 1954.

(2.) THE petitioner is a firm, Radhakrishna Mills (Pollachi) Ltd., at Pollachi. The fourth respondent, Ponnai Goundar, was one of the employees of the mills. On 5th October, 1953, the management framed some charges against the fourth respondent. After an enquiry on 7th October, 1953, the fourth respondent was suspended from his office till 15th October, 1953, as a punishment. He resumed office on 16th October, 1953. The fourth respondent alleged that it was a case of victimisation and that he had been unjustly punished. But on 21st October, 1953, he withdrew those allegations and expressed his regret to the management by a letter. On 23rd October, 1953, the fourth respondent revived the allegations of victimisation that he had made and realised from the position he had taken up in the letter said to have been sent by him on 21st October, 1953. Thereafter he abstained from work. The management terminated his services on 26th October, 1953, for staying away from work. The workers in the mills espoused the cause of the fourth respondent. Conciliation proceedings under Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, Act XIV of 1947 ensued and the labour officer who was the conciliation officer, reported under Section 12(4) of the Act that he had not been able to effect a settlement and he recommended that the industrial disputes be referred for adjudication under Section 10(1) of the Act. The Government did not accept that recommendation. On 27th February, 1954, obviously in exercise of the powers vested in the Government under Section 12(5) of the Act, the Government informed the parties that the Government considered that there was no case for adjudication. On 30th March, 1954, the Government received a communication emanating from the Communist Legislature Party at Madras, which itself purported to be a representation on behalf of the workers of the petitioner mills. On 26th April, 1954, the Government directed under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act that the industrial disputes specified in the schedule to the order be referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal at Coimbatore. The Industrial disputes specified were (1) whether the dismissal of Ponnai Gounder, son of Chellappa Gounder was justified, and (2) if not, whether he was entitled to reinstatement or compensation or any other relief. It was the validity of this order dated 26th April, 1954, that the petitioner challenged.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the third respondent, the workers' union, contended that none of the questions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner could be investigated in these proceedings as the petitioner was not entitled to a writ of certiorari to set aside the order complained against. Learned Counsel for the third respondent urged that the reference under Section 10(1)(c) of the Act constituted an administrative act of the Government to correct which no writ of certiorari could issue. That contention is well -founded. In State of Madras v. : (1953)ILLJ174SC , Patanjali Sastri, C.J., observed at page 218.