PROVINCIAL TRANSPORT SERVICES Vs. N.H. MUZUMDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for issue of an appropriate writ, direction or order, to respondent No. 1, the State Industrial Court, Nagpur, requiring it to follow an appropriate procedure during the enquiry of the industrial dispute between the petitioner on the one hand and respondent No. 2 on the other.

(2.) THE relevant facts are briefly as follows : Respondent No. 2 made an application before the State Industrial Court at Nagpur under Rule 37 of the rules framed under the Central Provinces and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act, for adjudication of certain demands made by it and specified in Schedule A appended to that application. It is common ground that a number of those demands pertain to the wages and emoluments of the workers employed in the Motor Transport Industry. The jurisdiction of the State Industrial Court was challenged on behalf of the petitioner on several grounds. One of the grounds was that the dispute, if any, lay within the cognisance of the District Industrial Court and not within that of the State Industrial Court. This objection was founded on the ground that the dispute did not relate to the industry as a whole but was limited to the undertaking controlled by the petitioner. This objection was overruled by Shri Muzumdar, who presides over the State Industrial Court, by his order dated May 5, 1956. In para. 3 of the order it is observed thus: During the course of the argument the learned Counsel for the non -applicant suggested that it was the District Industrial Court which would have jurisdiction to adjudicate on the dispute. This is a dispute of General Application affecting Industry as a whole and is excluded from the jurisdiction of the District Industrial Court : vide Rule m(a).

(3.) IT is common ground that after these issues were remitted to the assessors, they met in a body, but in the absence of the Presiding Officer of the Industrial Court, called for such material as they thought fit from the parties and on the basis of that drew up a report which they submitted to the State Industrial Court. After receipt of the report the State Industrial Court fixed the case for evidence, and it is common ground that evidence is being Ted even upon the issues which were sent to the assessors for their opinion. No notices were, however, issued to the assessors requiring them to be present at the hearing of the evidence. Thereupon an application was made by the petitioner to Shri Mujumdar to the effect that the presence of the assessors at the hearing of the evidence was necessary and that they should be summoned to be present on the dates on which the evidence was to be recorded. This application was rejected by Shri Mujumdar and the petitioner has, therefore, come to this Court.