(1.) DISPOSING of an application under Art. 226 of the Constitution filed by one K. N. Padmanabha Ayyar in the following circumstances. The joint family to which the said Padmanabha Ayyar belonged was running a hotel called Lakshmi Cafe at No. 311, Mint Street, Georgetown, Madras. On behalf of the workers of the said cafe, the Madras City Hotel Workers' Association put up a number of demands to the management relating to wages, dearness allowance, holidays, leave facilities, bonus, gratuity, provision of room for taking tiffin, etc. There were attempts at reconciliation by the labour officer, but the attempts did not succeed. On 2 May 1952, the proprietor of the cafe addressed the labour officer that owing to a slump in the business and high cost of foodstuffs, the business was running at a loss. There was also considerable trouble from the workers and therefore he had decided to close down the cafe section of the business from 8 May and requested the permission of the labour officer to do so. Eventually, on 1 July 1952, the business of the cafe was closed down. On 28 January 1953, the Government passed an order G.O. Ms. No. 397, Development, in and by which in exercise of the powers conferred on them by S. 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, they had directed the industrial dispute which had arisen between the workers and management of the Lakshmi Cafe, Madras, to be referred for adjudication to the industrial tribunal, Madras.
(2.) IN the annexure to the order they gave the list of items of dispute between the parties. The list is as follows : (1) Fixation of scales of wages for different categories of employees. (2) Fixation of the quantum of dearness allowance in the place of boarding and lodging. (3) Fixation of number of days for sick leave with wages in a year. (4) Fixation of the quantum of bonus for the years 1947, 1948, 1949, 1950 and 1951. (5) Fixation of the quantum of gratuity. (6) Whether the closure of the hotel in July, 1952 and the discharge of workers are justified and if not, to what relief the discharged workmen are entitled " Thereupon Padmanabha Ayyar, a member of the joint family which was running the hotel, filed the petition above referred to under Art. 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ quashing the order of reference of respondent 1 dated 28 January 1953, and the proceedings before the industrial tribunal, Madras, in pursuance of the said order of the Government. IN the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Government it was, inter alia, stated that there was no bona fide closure of the business and that the business was actually being considered, Govinda Menon, J., before whom the writ petition came on for hearing, after considering the report of a Commissioner who has been specially appointed to find out if the closure was really genuine, held that there was a bona fide closure of the business and that the management had not closed down the business with a view to victimize the Workmen and force them to accept their own terms.
(3.) BUT in our opinion, this technical objection should not be allowed to prevail so as to deny this Court an opportunity to interfere if the justice of the case calls for such interference. It is true that an executive act by itself cannot be quashed by a writ of certiorari but if by virtue of such an administrative act a quasi-judicial tribunal like the industrial tribunal is vested with jurisdiction to proceed with an adjudication which certainly will be of proper subject-matter of a writ of certiorari at a later stage, then it would be open to this Court, under the powers conferred on it by Art. 226 of the Constitution, to issue a writ in the nature of a writ of prohibition prohibiting the quasi-judicial tribunal, that is, the industrial tribunal, from proceedings with the enquiry in pursuance of the administrative order of the Government, if, this Court is convinced that the executive act is illegal or ultra vires. We therefore overrule the preliminary objection and shall proceed with the case as if the petitioner had prayed for an appropriate writ in the circumstances, that is, a writ of prohibition and not a writ of certiorari which happened to be mentioned specifically in the petition, though there was an omnibus prayer for the passing of any other order which may appear just to this Court in the circumstances.