S K G SUGAR LTD Vs. ALI HASSAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the petitioner, S. K. G. Sugar Ltd., has obtained a rule from the High Court calling upon the respondent to show cause why Miscellaneous cases nos. 26 and 27 of 1955, pending before the Industrial Tribunal under Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, should not be quashed by a writ in the nature of certiorari.

(2.) Cause has been shown by the learned Government Pleader on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Counsel on behalf of the respondents 4 to 23 appearing through the Secretary of the Chini Mazdoor Sangh.

(3.) It appears that the Gaya Sugar Mills Ltd., which is an incorporated Company under the Indian Companies Act, owned a sugar factory at Guraru in the district of Gaya. On the 4th of November, 1951, there was an order made by the High Court for the compulsory winding up of this Company. On the 1st of February, 1952, the High Court made a subsequent order appointing respondent no. 3, Mr. Dhansukh Lal Mehta, as Liquidator. On the 3rd of December, 1954, the High Court granted permission to the official Liquidator to execute a lease of the sugar factory at Guraru in favour of the petitioner for the period from the 5th of December, 1954, up to the 14th of November, 1955. It is said that the petitioner took possession of the sugar factory from the Official Liquidator on the 6th of December, 1954, and commenced working of the factory. It appears that a few days before, that is, on the 2nd of December, 1954, the State Government, had referred an industrial dispute between the Gaya Sugar Mills Ltd. and certain workmen employed in the sugar factory to the Industrial Tribunal under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The award of the Tribunal was given on the 25th of March, 1955, but there was an appeal taken to the Labour Appellate Tribunal and the appeal was decided on the 31st of August, 1956. On the 7th of April. 1955, the petitioner received notices from the Industrial Tribunal to the effect that respondents 4 to 23 had filed two miscellaneous cases nos. 26 and 27 of 1955, under Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, alleging that the petitioner had either discharged the workmen or changed their service conditions during the pendency of the adjudication! proceedings.