The jurisdiction of the Industrial Disputes Appellate Tribunal under Section 22 of the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950 is limited to considering whether a prima facie case has been made out by the employer and whether the action taken by the employer is bona fide. The IDAT is not required to adjudicate the dispute between the employer and the employees before granting permission.

CHAGLA, C.J.:- This petition raises a rather important question as to the ambit of the jurisdiction of the Industrial Disputes Appellate Tribunal under S.22 of Act XLVIII of 1950. On 21-1-1954, respondents No.2, the New China Mills gave a notice of change under S.42 Bombay Industrial Relations Act, with regard to change in items 1 and 4 of Sch. IV to that Act, and in substance the change which the mills intended to bring about was that instead of the workers attending to two sides of ring frames in the Ring Department, the workers had to attend to four sides.

Conciliation proceedings were commenced on 28-1-1954, and on 9-9-1954, these proceedings failed and a report to that effect was made by the Conciliator. On 22-9-1954, an application was made by the mills for permission to bring about this change under S.22 of the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act and on 15-10-1954, the Appellate Tribunal gave its permission to the mills. It is this order that is challenged by the petitioner.

2. Turning to the relevant section, it provides that:

"During the period of thirty days allowed for the filing of an appeal under section 10 or during the pendency of any appeal under this Act, no employer shall:

(a) alter, to the prejudice of the workmen concerned in such appeal, the conditions of service applicable to them immediately before the filing of such appeal, or...save with the express permission in writing of the Appellate Tribunal." We are not concerned with Cl. (b) of that section in this petition. It is not disputed that the petitioner was concerned in an appeal which was pending before the Appellate Tribunal, and therefore if the employer wanted to alter to the prejudice of the workmen any condition of service, he had to obtain the express permission in writing of the Appellate Tribunal.

3. Now, what is contended by Mr. Nargolkar is that when an application under S.22 is made by the employer, the Appellate Tribunal should only give its permission after an adjudication of the dispute between the employer and the employee. It is contended that S.22 confers upon the Appellate Tribunal the same jurisdiction that S.23 does. For the purpose of this argument it is necessary to look at the provisions of S.23.

That section confers certain important right upon the employee and the right is that if an employer contravenes the provisions of S.22, then the employee aggrieved by such contravention may make a complaint in writing to the Appellate Tribunal and on receipt of such complaint the Appellate Tribunal has been given the jurisdiction to decide the complaint as if it were an appeal pending before it in accordance with the provisions of the Act, and it is incumbent upon the Appellate Tribunal to pronounce its decision upon the complaint and the provisions of the Act shall apply accordingly.

Therefore, as far as the construction of S.23 is concerned, there can be no doubt that on a complaint made by the employee with regard to the contravention of S.22 not only has the Appellate Tribunal to consider whether an action has been taken by the employer under S.22 without the permission in writing of the Appellate Tribunal, but also the merits of the dispute between the employer and the employee.

What is suggested is that whereas S.23 gives the right to the employee to have an industrial dispute adjudicated, a similar right is conferred upon the employer under S.22, and if the employer goes for permission to the Appellate Tribunal, he can only get the permission after the Appellate Tribunal had adjudicated upon the dispute, and only after the Appellate Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the dispute must be decided in favour of the employer that the Appellate Tribunal should give the requisite permission under S.22.

Apart from authorities and apart from any other argument advanced by Mr. Nargolkar with which we shall presently deal, it is clear on the language itself of the two sections, viz. Ss.22 and 23, that the ambit of the jurisdi