JAGANNATH VINAYAK KALE Vs. M I AHMADI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is an employee of the Mazagaon Dock, Ltd., respondent 3 herein. The petitioner is a member of the Dockyard Labour Union. Respondent 1 to the petition is Sri M. I Ahmadi, who has acted as an industrial tribunal under the Industrial Disputed Act, 1947. Respondent 2 is the State of Bombay. The petitioner has prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of a writ of certiorari or a direction or order and/or other appropriate writ under Art. 226 of the Constitution against respondent 1 calling for the record of the proceedings of this reference in (I.T.) No. 126 of 1954 and quashing and setting aside the award, dated September 20, 1956, made by respondent 1 in so far as it related to the reference (I.T.) No. 126 of 1954. He has further prayed for a writ of prohibition against respondent 1 or a writ in the nature of prohibition or an order or direction and/or other appropriate writ under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India restraining respondent 1 from acting as an industrial tribunal in the industrial dispute raised by the said union.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the petition, briefly stated, are as under : On April 19, 1948, the Government of Bombay, in exercise of the powers conferred by S. 7 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was pleased "to constitute an industrial tribunal consisting of Mr. Salim, M. Merchant, B.A. LL.B., for the adjudication of industrial disputes in relation to which the Central Government is not the appropriate Government in accordance with the provisions of the said Act." BY an order, dated September 15, 1954, the Government of Bombay in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause 1(c) of Sub-section (1) of S. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred certain disputes that had arisen between respondent 3 and the workmen employed under it for adjudication to the said tribunal consisting of Sri Salim M. Merchant. Mr. Merchant thereafter proceeded with the matter and a number of meetings were held before him between November, 1954 and July, 1955. The said reference is Reference (I.T.) No. 126 of 1954. In the beginning of August, 1955, Mr. Merchant was appointed a member of the Labour Appellate Tribunal with the result that his services ceased to be available for the purpose of adjudication of the disputes that had been referred to him as aforesaid. It is stated in the petition that after the services of Mr. Merchant ceased to be available as aforesaid, the hearing of the disputes was adjourned sine die. The Dockyard Labour Union, of which the petitioner is a member, thereupon wrote a letter, dated September 1, 1955, to the Honourable the Minister of Labour, Bombay Government, for having the matter transferred to another industrial tribunal. On September 23, 1955, the Government of Bombay, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (2) of S. 8 of the said Act, appointed Sri M. I. Ahmadi, respondent 1, in place of Sri Salim M. Merchant. On September 30, 1955, the Assistant Secretary to the Government of Bombay, Development Department, intimated to the General Secretary of the Dockyard Labour Union that "a successor to Sri Salim M. Merchant" had been appointed. Thereafter, on November 8, 1955, the Secretary of the industrial tribunal gave notice inter alia to the General Secretary of the Dockyard Labour Union that the matter would be taken up "for further hearing before Sri M. I. Ahmadi, Industrial Tribunal." The further hearing of the disputes before respondent 1 commenced on November 28, 1955, and went on without any objection on the part of the union or of the petitioner. The union appeared before the tribunal and the representatives of the union were fully heard in the matter. The hearing ended on June 28, 1956. On September 20, 1956, respondent 1 made his award part I. The award is a lengthy document extending over 120 closely printed pages. The award appears at pp. 3895 to 4015 of the Bombay Government Gazette, dated October 18, 1956. Respondent 1 has left certain matters for decision at a later stage and has given his reasons therefor in Para. 22 of the award. These matters relate tot he classification of workmen under various categories in the event of the company and the union being unable to agree upon the appropriate category in which some of the workmen should be placed. On October 25, 1956, the petitioner filed the petition herein. A rule was issued by my brother Tendolkar J., on November 5, 1956.

(3.) The principal question raised before me relates to the validity of he appointment of respondent 1 as an industrial tribunal. It is contended that the appointment which is made under S. 8(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is invalid, and that respondent 1 had no jurisdiction to determine any of the disputes purported to have been referred to him.