JIYAJI RAO COTTON MILLS LTD Vs. INDUSTRIAL COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by the petitioner jiyaji Rao Cotton Mills, Ltd. , Birla Nagar, Gwalior, for the issue of a writ of prohibition and also one of certiorari or for any other suitable direction. The writ of prohibition is prayed for in order to prevent the industrial court of Madhya Bharat from proceeding with the reference made to it under Section 73a, Bombay Industrial Relations Act, as applied to Madhya Bharat. The writ of certiorari is prayed for in order to secure the quashing of proceedings before that court.

(2.) THE facts which gave rise to the present petition are that: A notice of change as contemplated under Section 42 (2), Industrial Relations Act, in force in this State and under Rule 52 of the rules thereunder, was given by the President, Mazdoor Congress, Gwalior, to the management of the petitioner mill. This was dated 23 December 1950. This notice of change was based on the allegation that the clerical employees of the mill were not granted bonus equal to three months' basic salary as was granted to the other employees of the mill. After this notice of change was served upon the management the matter was referred for conciliation. It is alleged that, while the proceedings before the conciliator were still pending, the president of the aforesaid union of workers, which is a registered union as contemplated under the Act, applied for referring the matter to the industrial court under Section 73a of the aforesaid Act. The industrial court entertained the reference and issued notice, dated 16 February 1951, to the petitioner as required under the Act. The petitioner appeared before the industrial court and contended that Section 73a under which the reference was purported to be made was ultra vires of Article 14 of the Constitution. The reference was, therefore, bad in law and inoperative and that that court had no jurisdiction to precede with such a reference. The industrial court by its order, dated 30 March 1951, overruled the objection on the ground that the court was not a civil court and was therefore unable to pronounce on the constitutional question raised before it. It is after this that the petitioner has moved this Court.

(3.) NONE of the parties submitted any return. The only question which was raised before this Court was whether the provisions of Section 73a, Bombay Industrial Relations (Adaptation) Act, Madhya Bharat, No. 31, Samvat 2006, is contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution and is, therefore, void.