The High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition challenging the reference of a dispute to the Industrial Tribunal and the lockout order even at the initial stage of the proceedings before the Tribunal. However, it would be appropriate for the Tribunal to try the preliminary issue of whether the transfer of business was a closure or a lockout.

Judgment

GAJENDRAGADKAR, J. : On April 30,1959 the Madras Government referred to the Industrial Tribunal Madras, for its adjudication two industrial issues which had arisen between the appellants. The Management of Express Newspapers Ltd. and the respondents its workmen. These two items of dispute were thus specified in the order of Reference :

1. Whether the transfer of the publication of Andhra Prabha and Andhra Prabha Illustrated Weekly to Andhra Prabha Private Ltd. in Vijayawada is justified and to what relief the workers and the working journalists are entitled ?

2. Whether the strike of the workers and working journalists from 27th April, 1959 and the consequent lockout by the management of the Express Newspapers Private Ltd. are justified and to what relief the workers and the working journalists are entitled ?

This reference was made under S. 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (XIV of 1947) (hereinafter called the Act.)

2. On the same day, the Government of Madras issued another Order under S. 10 (3) of the Act prohibiting the continuance of the strike and the lockout in the appellant concern. This Order was issued because the Government was of the opinion that it was expedient and necessary to prohibit the continuance of the said strike and lockout.

3. Against the latter Order, the appellant filed a writ petition in the Madras High Court (No.443 of 1959) on May 1,1959, whereas on May 5, 1959, it filed a Writ Petition No. 450 of 1959 against the Order by which the dispute in question was referred to the Industrial Tribunal for its adjudication. Both the writ petitions were heard together by Balakrishna Ayyar, J. He held that the Government Order issued under S.10(3) of the Act was an administrative order, and it was doubtful whether it would be open to the Court to quash the said Order as it stood. Even so, the learned Judge held that the Government had no jurisdiction to make the said Order and that the appellant was entitled to ignore it. In the opinion of the learned Judge, the ends of justice would be met if this clarification was made and so, that is the only order which he passed on Writ Petition No. 443 of 1959.

4. In regard to Writ Petition No. 450 of 1959, the learned Judge held that he had jurisdiction to entertain the said writ petition even at an interlocutory stage and so, he rejected the preliminary objection raised by the respondents. On the merits, he took the view that what the appellant had done did not amount to a lockout but a closure and so, the substantial part of the dispute between the parties did not amount to an industrial dispute at all. That is why he came to the conclusion that it is only the latter parts of the first and second questions which could be tried by the Tribunal. In the result, the Petition filed by the appellant was partly allowed and the Tribunal was directed to deal with only the second part of the two questions framed by the impugned reference.

5. This derision was challenged by the respondents by preferring two appeals before a Division Bench of the Madras High Court. The order passed on W.P. No. 443/1959 gave rise to Writ Appeal No. 85 of 1959, whereas the order passed on Writ Petition No. 450/1959 gave rise to Writ Appeal No. 73 of 1959. The appellate Court has agreed with the trial Judge in holding that the order issued by the Government under S.10(3) of the Act was ill-advised and without jurisdiction and so, the appellant can with impunity ignore the said order. In regard to the main point of controversy between the parties as to the validity of the reference itself, the Appeal Court took the view that the question which had to be decided in dealing with the Appellants contention that the reference was invalid, were complex questions of fact and that it would be appropriate that the said questions should be fully investigated and tried in the first instance by the Industrial Tribunal itself. In other words, the Appeal Court held that though the High Court had juri