Judgment

CHANDRACHUD, J. :- This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment dated July 7, 1970 of a Division Bench of the High Court at Madras in Writ Petition No. 122 of 1969, quashing an award dated May 25, 1968 of the first respondent, the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Madras.

2. While allowing the writ petition the learned Chief Justice, who delivered the judgment of the Bench, observed that the petition discloses "an unfortunate state of affairs". We are in regretful agreement with that observation. It shall be our endeavour to find a solution to the unfrotunate situation arising out of irreconciliable orders passed by the learned Judges of the High Court.

3. In 1961 the appellants, Oriental Mercantile Agency, retrenched six of their workmen resulting in an industrial dispute which was referred by the Government of Madras to the Labour Court for adjudication. The question referred to the Labour Court was whether the non-employment of the six workmen was justified and what relief they were entitled to. By its award dated June 14, 1963 the Labour Court (Shri M. S. Abdul Azeez) held that the non-employment of the workmen was justified and therefore they were not entitled to any relief.

4. Against the award of the Labour Court the workmen filed writ petition No. 209 of 1964 in the Madras High Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution. Setting aside the award, Venkatadri J. held by his judgment dated February 20, 1967 that the non-employment of workmen was unjstified, that the intention of the management was to weed out those whom it did not want and that the reasons given by the management for terminating the services of the workmen were fanciful. The learned Judge wound up his judgment in these words: "I am therefore of the opinion that the conclusion of the Labour Court cannot be sustained, on the facts and circumstances of this case. Therefore the matter is remitted back to the Labour Court for fresh disposal."

5. The appellants filed writ appeal No. 113 of 1967 against the judgment of the learned Judge. That appeal came for hearing before Anantanarayanan C. J. and Natesan J., who by their order dated April 4, 1967 dismissed the appeal in limine, with the following observations :

"In advancing the arguments before us for the admission of the writ appeal, learned counsel for the employer organisation submits that on certain of the vital issues of fact, the learned Judge has already expressed conclusions, which may be ultimately prejudicial to the case which the management hoped to establish before the Labour Court. As we understand, this judgment of the learned Judge amounts to a quashing of the award, and release of the proceedings for fresh and proper determination by the Labour Court, for carefully ascertaining the facts and applying the true principles of Industrial Law applicable to such cases of retrenchment. We do not understand the learned Judge to have finally expressed any conclusions on the major questions of fact, and the Labour Court need not interpret the judgment as such. It is sufficient that the Labour Court proceeds to ascertain the facts with care, in the light of the principles stressed by the learned Judge, and in making the award, it should come to conclusions on facts after a detailed analysis, and apply the real principles of Industrial Law applicable to such cases. With these observations and clarification the writ appeal is dismissed."

Notice of the appeal was not issued to the workmen and the order extracted above was passed without hearing them.

6. The matter then went back for "fresh disposal" to the Labour Court. Relying upon the observations made in the writ appeal, appellants contended before the Labour Court that they were entitled to re-agitate the matters in controversy. The workmen objected to that course, contending that Venkatadri J. had recorded a specific finding that the non-employment of workmen was unjustified and that this finding was binding on the Labour Court.

7. While the ma