The jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal under Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is dependent on the preliminary conditions that the person making the complaint is a "workman" and that there has been a contravention of Section 33 of the Act.

Ramaswami, J.

1. In this case the petitioner, namely, the Bata Shoe Company Ltd., has moved the High Court for grant of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the proceedings taken by the Industrial Tribunal, respondent 1, on 21-5-1955 under Sec.33A, Industrial Disputes Act (Act 14 of 1947) and also the interim order passed by the Industrial Tribunal on 31-5-1955, that "the status quo should be maintained" till the disposal of the. miscellaneous case.

2. On 29-4-1955, the State Government referred an industrial dispute between the management of the Bata Shoe Company Ltd. at Dighaghat and its workmen represented by the Bata Mazdoor Union to respondent 1, the Industrial Tribunal at Patna, for adjudication under Sec.10, Industrial Disputes Act (Act 14 of 1947). The notification of the State Government is notification No. 3D(1)/ 16015/55L dated 29-4-1955.

Respondent 2 was employed by the Company, as supervisor of the Personnel Department of Dighaghat branch. It is the petitioners case that Sri Jamuna Prasad was the head of the Personnel Department doing independent supervision and control of his department. On 27-4-1955, the petitioner transferred Sri Jamuna Prasad from the Personnel Department to the Purchasing. Department known as Department No. 100 of the same factory at Digha. Sri Jamuna Prasad, however, did not obey the order of transfer.

On 5-5-1955, the factory manager made another order asking Sri Jamuna Prasad to hand over charge of the Personnel Department. Sri Jamuna Prasad, however, deliberately refused to obey the order and continued to hold charge of the Personnel Department. On 21-5-1955, Sri Jamuna Prasad filed a petition under Sec.33A, Industrial Disputes Act before the Tribunal alleging that "he was harassed, victimised and punished" by the management of the Company. On 28-5-1955, the Industrial Tribunal registered the petition under Sec.33A and "issued notice on the management to show cause by 10-6-1955". On 31-5-1955, Sri Jamuna Prasad again filed a petition before the Tribunal praying for "immediate protection" and to order the management "to maintain the status quo in the petitioners case."

The Tribunal allowed the application and ordered that "the status quo should be maintained" till the petition of Sri Jamuna Prasad was finally heard. The Company made objection before the Tribunal that Sri Jamuna Prasad was not a "workman" within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act and that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to proceed under Sec.33A. The Company prayed that the Tribunal should first decide the preliminary question whether Sri Jamuna Prasad was a "workman" or not. The prayer was refused by the Tribunal on the ground that "no useful purpose would be served by taking up the preliminary issue first".

The submission on behalf of the petitioner is that Sri Jamuna Prasad is not a "workman" within the meaning of Act 14 of .1947 and there was no contravention of the provisions of Sec.33 of that Act. It was contended, therefore, that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to initiate any proceeding under Sec.33A or to pass interim orders on the application of Sri Jamuna Prasad. The petitioner, therefore, prayed that a writ in the nature of certiorari should be issued to quash the entire proceeding under Sec.33A, Industrial Disputes Act.

3. Cause has been shown by Mr. Baldeva Sahai on behalf of respondent 2, Sri Jamuna Prasad. The learned Government Pleader appeared on behalf of the Industrial Tribunal, respondent 1. It Was submitted by the Government Pleader that his attitude was neutral and that he would not say anything either in favour of or against the application.

4. On behalf of the petitioner Mr. P.R. Das put forward the argument that two conditions were to be satisfied before the Industrial Tribunal could start a proceeding under Sec.33A, Industrial Disputes Act. It was submitted by learned counsel that the person who makes the complaint under Sec.33A must be a "workman" within the meaning of Act