KRISHNAMURTHI M K Vs. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari to set aside the award of the industrial tribunal, Madras, dated 7 September 1953.

(2.) THE petitioner was the sole proprietor of the business, which he carried on under the name of Photo Litho Press, Madras. On 29 February 1953, the workers through their union made certain demands of their employer, the petitioner, which he did not comply with. Conciliation proceedings were commenced under the Industrial Disputes Act on 26 March 1953. During the pendency of those proceedings, on 11 April 1953, the petitioner issued a notice in the following terms: Owing to my domestic and other circumstances. I am unable to run the press for some time. I regret to inform all the employees of the press that their services will not be required from today. They will however be paid one month's wages in lieu of notice and may receive the wages due to them up to date from the office on Tuesday, the 14 instant. Such of those who have uncompleted work on hand will please complete it as early as possible and then stop away. The conciliation officer eventually reported failure to effect a conciliation between the employer and the employees of the Photo Litho, Press. On 7 July 1953, the Government of Madras exercised its powers under Section 10 (1) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act XIV of 1947. The industrial dispute referred to the industrial tribunal, Madras, for adjudication was: whether the closure of the factory on and from 11 April 1953 is justified and if not, to what compensation the workers are entitled.

(3.) THE award of the industrial tribunal, Madras, dated 7 September 1953, which was published in the Fort St. George Gazette, dated 30 September 1953, was printed in 1954--I L. L. J. 107 [madras Press Labour Union v. Photo Litho Press, Madras]. The tribunal rejected the plea of petitioner that it was a case of discontinuance of business by its owner, and that such discontinuance could not constitute an "industrial dispute" at all. The tribunal found that the petitioner failed to prove his case that there was a sale of his business to a limited liability concern which was incorporated under the name of the Photo Litho Press, Ltd. The tribunal upheld the plea of the workers that in effect the notice issued by the petitioner on 11 April 1953 constituted a declaration of a lockout, and that the lockout was illegal. The reliefs granted by the tribunal to the workers may be left out of consideration, as they do not affect the determination of the question at issue before me whether what was referred by the Government on 7 July 1953 is an "industrial dispute" at all within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act.