MAHARANA BHAGWAT SINGHJI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution on behalf of His highness Shri Bhagwat Singhji, Ruler of Mewar, and arises under the following circumstances: on the demise of his father, late His Highness Maharana Bhopal Singhji, who was the Maharaj Pramukh of Rajasthan, the petitioner discharged certain employees of the Motor Garage as they became surplus on account of the office of the Maharaj Pramukh being abolished on the death of his father. Thereupon these employees claimed compensation for retrenchment and made a representation through the Motor (Workers) Mazdoor Union Udaipur (Respondent No. 3 in the Writ petition) to the Rajasthan Government (Respondent No. 1) which by notification No. F9 (15)Lab. /57, dated Jaipur the 18th of December 1957 made a reference to the Industrial Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur (Respondent No. 2) for adjudication of the dispute. The petitioner took several objections to the maintainability of the reference. The first objection was that in view of the provisions of Section 87-B read with Section 86 of the Code of Civil Procedure the reference was not tenable without the previous consent of the Central Government. The second objection was that on the date when the reference was made no Industrial Tribunal was constituted under the amended Act as held by this Court in the unreported case in Civil Writ Petn. No. 107 of 1958 --Nundra Metal Works Private Ltd. , Bikaner v. State of Rajasthan, D/- 303-1959 (Raj) and no fresh reference was made after the Tribunal was constituted in accordance with law. We need not set out the other objections taken as the Tribunal has so far decided only these two objections against the petitioner and is yet to decide the other objections.

(2.) IN this Writ petition it is urged that in deciding both these objections the tribunal had committed errors apparent on the face of the record and that on a correct interpretation of law on both these matters the Tribunal is not competent to entertain and decide the matter and therefore by Writ of Prohibition the tribunal should be directed from proceeding further in adjudicating the dispute referred to it. This Writ petition is contested on behalf of Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and it is contended that the findings of the Tribunal on these points are correct.

(3.) THE first question that requires determination in this Writ petition is whether the industrial Tribunal is incompetent to proceed to adjudicate into the matter referred to it on account of the provisions of Section 87-B, C. P. C. It is not in dispute that (he petitioner is a ruler of the former Indian State. He is entitled to invoke the privileges contained in Sub-sections (1) and (3) of Section 86 which are available to a ruler of a foreign State. The relevant provisions of Section 86 are, as follows: