TMI Blog1953 (10) TMI 40X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... April 1951 for recognition. An enquiry was made and the application was granted. 3. The fifth respondent (the Tapti Mill Majdoor Sangh) thereupon appealed to the provincial industrial court for setting aside the certificate on the ground that the enquiry was not proper. The industrial court dismissed the appeal (LA. No. 2 of 1951, dated 23 June 1951). No appeal was taken against that decision to the Labour Appellate Tribunal at Bombay. 4. On 24 July 1951 the fifth respondent filed an application under Section 7, Central Provinces and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act, 1947, before the Registrar of Trade Unions, Madhya Pradesh, for cancellation of the recognition. This application was rejected by the third respondent on 27 August 1951. An appeal was taken against the order to the industrial court which was also dismissed on 27 October 1951. No appeal was filed against that order before the Appellate Tribunal. 5. The fifth respondent filed yet another application on 30 January 1952 for cancellation of the recognition. The application was rejected by the third respondent on 6 October 1952. 6. An appeal was filed against the order before the provincial industrial co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... othing in the request that an early decision should be given. We cannot be a party to anything which has even the appearance of either furthering or retarding a motion of no-confidence in the Legislative Assembly. We therefore intimated to counsel that we would take time to consider the matter and that we did not consider that the petition had been filed with any ulterior motive, regard being had to the history of the dispute between the rival trade unions. Indeed, the arguments themselves lasted well into the day and there was thus no occasion to pronounce our order the same day. 11. The objection of the fifth respondent is that in view of the decision of their lordships of the Supreme Court in Election Commission v. Venkata Rao read with the decision of their lordships of the Privy Council is Ryots of Grabandho v. Zamindar of Parlakimedi this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present petition for a writ directed against the Appellate Tribunal, Bombay. The objection is based upon the wording of Article 226 of the Constitution and it is contended that since the Appellate Tribunal is not situate within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, no writ can go to that Tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Appellate Tribunal is constituted under the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950. Under Section 6 it is provided as follows:-- 6. Seat of the Appellate Tribunal--The Appellate Tribunal shall have its principal seat at such place as the Central Government may, by notification in the official gazette, appoint. Section 8 of the Act provides as follows:-- 8. Constitution of Benches of the Appellate Tribunal.--(I) The Chairman may constitute as many Benches of the Appellate Tribunal as may be deemed necessary for the purpose of carrying out the functions and exercising the powers of the Appellate Tribunal. (2) * * * (3) A Bench shall sit at such place or places as may be specified by the Chair man by notification in the official gazette. Provided that the Bench may, if it is satisfied that it will tend to the general convenience of the parties or witnesses in any particular case, sit at any other places. (4) * * * 15. It is pertinent to point out here that the Central Government issued a notification on 8 August 1950 constituting the Appellate Tribunal and appointed the principal seat of the Tribunal at Bombay. No notification of the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act the order of the tribunal will operate together with the order of the industrial court after the expiry of one month. It is contended that, though the industrial court is within our jurisdiction, the decision of the dispute by the Appellate Tribunal and the effect which Section 15 gives to the Tribunal's order renders it impossible for us to interfere by way of a writ even directed against the industrial court. The petitioners, on the other hand, contend that the two cases from Bombay and Madras are clear authority for the proposition that the jurisdiction does exist and nothing decided in the Supreme Court can or does touch those decisions because their lordships themselves specifically reserved that question for some future discussion. 19. I have, therefore, to see what the decisions in the two cases from Bombay and Madras were. Both these cases concerned a dispute between the Madras Electric Tram ways, Ltd., and Sri M.K. Ranganathan and others. The Bombay decision was the first in point of time. The writ was sought against the Labour Appellate Tribunal from the Bombay High Court in respect of a dispute which had arisen in Madras and was the subject-matter of a decisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stion of jurisdiction in these words: It is said that the Tribunal is not within the territory in relation to which the High Court exercises jurisdiction. Before I consider this argument, some relevant facts may be stated. The Appellate Labour Tribunal, though it has its head office in Bombay, is itinerant and holds its sittings in different parts of the country. It also held a sitting within the jurisdiction of this Court in connexion with an appeal filed by the first respondent and also disposed of some interlocutory applications in connexion with that appeal. Further, the dispute arose in the territory within the jurisdiction of this Court and all the parties to the dispute reside within such a territory. In the Judicial Committee had elaborately considered the question whether the Madras High Court could issue a writ of certiorari quashing the order of the Revenue Board fixing fair and equitable rent in respect of lands in three villages belonging to the Zamindar of Parlakimedi in Ganjam district. At p. 178 their lordships observed: The question is whether the principle of the case can be applied in the present case to the settlement; of rent for land in Ganjam mere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned during some part of the inquiry in that case within the jurisdiction of the Madras High Court, He, therefore, held that the Madras High Court had jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari against the order of the Labour Appellate Tribunal. 23. The question that arises is whether the decision of Subba Rao, J., as also the observations of the Division Bench in the Bombay case, can now stand in view of the pronoun cement of their lordships of the Supreme Court in the Election Commission case. In that case, which was an appeal from an order of a single Judge of the High Court of Madras issuing a writ of prohibition restraining the Election Commission, it was held that the High Court of Madras had no jurisdiction to bind or restrain the Election Commission, a statutory authority constituted by the President and having its office permanently located at New Delhi. The learned Judges of the Supreme Court took into consideration the decision of their lordships of the Privy Council in the Parlakimedi case and held that the writs issued by the High Courts cannot on that decision as well as Article 226 of the Constitution run beyond the territories subject to its jurisdiction. They als ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... did decide, and conclusively, that Article 226 makes no reference to the cause of action or where it arises but insists that the presence of the person or authority should be within the territory in relation to which the High Court exercises the jurisdiction conferred by that article. This dictum is not dependent on any facts in controversy in that case. Further, their lordships have clearly held that an authority or tribunal, though casually present within the territories of the High Court, cannot be said to be functioning there if its permanent and normal location is outside the jurisdiction of the High Court. This observation also, if I may point out with respect, does not depend upon any factual basis beyond that the office of the Election Commission is permanently and normally situated at Delhi. 25. The observations of their lordships are, therefore, conclusive. It is true that their lordships reserved for future consideration a case where an Appellate Tribunal considers an order passed by another tribunal situated within the jurisdiction of the High Court, though the Appellate Tribunal is not. If the authority sought to be bound is the appellate authority, then the decis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the decision of the Appellate Tribunal so long as its principal seat is Bombay or, to use the words of their lordships of the Supreme Court, it is permanently located and normally carries on its activities elsewhere. The result is anomalous and unfortunate. The High Court of Bombay appears to possess the power to quash by its writs the order of the Labour Appellate Tribunal at Bombay passed in disputes arising within that State, but no other High Court has that power even though the dispute relates to matters which have arisen within the jurisdiction of that Court. It is a lacuna for the legislature to fill up, and not for the Judges to make good who must interpret the law as they find it. I accordingly hold that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present petition, which is therefore dismissed. There shall be no order about costs as the objectors intervened and there was no notice to them. I certify under Article 152 (1) that the case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution. R. Kaushalendra Rao, J. 28. I agree to the order proposed by my learned brother Hidayatullah. No other conclusion than that reached by him is pos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ough the order of the Appellate Tribunal may not be touched is fallacious and cannot bear scrutiny. The powers of prohibition, correction and direction which this Court undoubtedly possesses under Article 226 are primarily intended to ensure that public authorities observe the law and do not trample on the rights of the citizen. An order of this Court quashing the order of the industrial court while leaving untouched the order of the Appellate Tribunal is not conducive to the observance of the law, but on the contrary renders the law itself uncertain by giving rise to two conflicting orders claiming apparently equal obedience from the Registrar. In such an event the Registrar who is empowered under Section 7 of the Act to cancel the certificate of recognition of a union would not know whether he should or should not make a further enquiry into the question of cancellation of the certificate granted to the petitioner. The Registrar cannot comply with either the order of this Court or that of the Appellate Tribunal without at the same time flouting the other. In view of Section 30(3) of the Act, if the submission of the petitioner be correct, the Registrar would be liable to be commi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
