The Central Act XIV of 1947 governed industrial disputes in the State, and the reference made by the Government was authorized and valid. The Industrial Tribunal continued to be valid even after the Central Act became law, and the reference to the Tribunal was not conclusive of the existence of an 'industrial dispute.' The Government's order of reference did not violate the rules of natural justice, and the provision disallowing representation by a legal practitioner did not violate any fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

1. This is an application on behalf of the Firm of M.M. Nagalinga Nadar Sons, Quilon (hereinafter referred to as the petitioners) through one of their partners under Art. 226 of the Constitution, asking this court to call up the records in Industrial Dispute No. 8 of 1950 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal, Alleppey and to grant the following reliefs:

(a) To grant a declaration that there is or can be, no "Industrial Dispute" within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, central or local, as between the petitioner and his coolies and to restrain Travancore-Cochin State (respondent No. 3) by injunction from any interference in their mutual relationship under and by virtue of the Industrial Disputes Act;

(b) To issue a writ in the nature of certiorari and prohibition quashing the proceedings of the said Tribunal

(respondent No. 2);

(c) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus allowing the representation of the petitioner in the proceedings before the Tribunal through its legal adviser and to give such further or other directions as the circumstances of the case require.

The Ambalapuzha Taluq Head Load Conveyance Worker's Union, Alleppey is Respondent No.1 to this application and the above reliefs are claimed as against all the three respondents.

2. The petitioners are doing business in the purchase and sale of cocoanut oil with their head office at Quilon and branches at Alleppey and other places. Purchases are made at Alleppey while the sales take place elsewhere. Members of Respondent 1's Union are engaged as manual labourers in taking delivery and in giving delivery of oil. Differences however arose between the parties concerning a reduction made by the petitioners of the existing rates of wages for different items of work the labour had to at tend to and with respect to a claim for bonus put forward by the latter. Negotiations for settlement proved unsuccessful and Respondent 1's Union made a representation to the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Alleppey for conciliation of the dispute. The latter's efforts for conciliation also failed. He therefore reported to Government for referring the dispute to an Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. In exercise of the powers vested in them under S.10 of the Industrial Disputes Act the Government referred the matter to the 2nd Respondent - Tribunal at Alleppey by their order dated 31.7.1950 and the said order was notified in the Gazette of even date. The 2nd respondent taking cognizance of the dispute issued notices to the parties and pursuant to the notice served on the petitioners, they raised a preliminary objection through an Advocate that the reference was ultra vires the Government in as much as their trade or business did not amount to an "industry" within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act and the persons employed in their trade for manual labour were not "workmen" within the meaning of the said Act. According to the petitioners there was therefore no "industrial dispute" which could be made the

subject of a reference to a Tribunal constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act and the reference did not confer jurisdiction on the 2nd respondent Tribunal to pass an award with reference to the controversies between the parties before it. Respondent 1 raised an objection that the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act XIV if 1947), under which Government made the reference did not entitle a party to a proceeding before a Tribunal being represented by a legal Practitioner except with the consent of the other parties to the proceeding and with the leave of the Tribunal. These objections gave rise to two orders by the Tribunal, one on 5.9.1950 upholding Respondent 1's objection that no Advocate can be permitted to appear except on the terms mentioned above and the other, dated 20.9.1950 overruling the preliminary objection raised by the petitioners. The Tribunal held that the dispute fell within the purview of the Industrial Disputes Act, and that the Tribun