Judgement

BHAGWATI, J.: The three appeals with special leave from the orders of the High Court of Punjab and three petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution challenge the vires of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (XIV of 1947) hereinafter referred to as the Act.

2. The appellants in the three appeals are engaged in the manufacture and production of textiles. There were disputes between them and their workmen, and by two notifications each dated March 4, 1955, in regard to the first two of them and by a notification dated February 25, 1955, in respect of the third, the State of Punjab, respondent No. 2, referred the said disputes for adjudication to the 2nd Punjab Industrial Tribunal, Amritsar, respondent No.1, who entered upon the said references and issued notices to the appellants to file, their written statements. The appellants in Civil Appeal No. 335 of 1955 filed their written statement on March 31, 1955, without prejudice to their contentions that respondent No. 2 was not competent to refer the disputes for adjudication by respondent No.1 and that respondent No.1 had no jurisdiction to entertain the reference. The appellants in Civil Appeals Nos. 333 and 334 of 1955 were called upon to file their written statements on or before April 23, 1955 which they did raising the same objections as to the competency of respondent No.2 and the jurisdiction of respondent No.1.

3. On April 14,1955, however, the appellants in all the three appeals filed writ petitions in the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution against, inter alia, respondents Nos. 1 and 2 asking for writs in the nature of prohibition restraining respondent No. 1 from proceeding with the references, writs in the nature, of certiorari directing respondent No. 1 to transmit the records of the proceedings for being quashed and writs in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No.2 to cancel the notifications under which the said references had been made. The grounds which were urged in support of these applications were that their mills were controlled industries within the definition of the term contained in cl. (ee) of S.2 of the Act as amended by S. 32 of Act LXV of 1951, that they were engaged in the production and manufacture of textile goods and were a textile industry within the meaning of the word textiles as mentioned in the First Schedule to Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, and had been declared an industry of which the Union Government had taken control within the meaning of the said Act, that the disputes purporting to be referred by respondent No.2 to respondent No.1 were industrial disputes concerning a controlled industry specified in this behalf by the Central Government and that, therefore, the appropriate Government for the purpose of the Act so far as their mills were concerned was the Union Government and not respondent No. 2 and that respondent No. 2 had no jurisdiction or authority to refer the existing or apprehended disputes between them and their workmen to respondent No.1 and the references being invalid there was no jurisdiction in respondent No. 1 to entertain the said references. These petition came up for hearing before a Division Bench of the High Court consisting of the learned Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Kapur who dismissed the same in limine observing that they were premature, obviously meaning that respondent No.1 could determine the objection in regard to its juridiction to entertain the references and unless and until it did so the appellants had no cause of action to file the said petitions.

4. It appears that on or about April 12, 1955, a Division Bench of the said High Court consisting of the learned Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Falshaw had admitted a writ petition based on the very same grounds and had granted a stay of proceedings before respondent No. 1 therein. It further appears that on April 18, 1955, the very same Bench which dismissed the petitions of the appellants in limine on April 15