The lack of jurisdiction of the subordinate tribunal, by itself, is not substantial or manifest injustice, and the mere presence of errors apparent on the face of the record without any resultant manifest injustice is not sufficient to call for the exercise of the discretionary powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

RAGHAVAN,J.:-

The Management of the I.I. Iyyappan Mills (Private) Ltd., has filed this Writ Petition for the issue of an appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the findings and the directions given by the Industrial Tribunal, Kozhikode, the 2nd respondent before us, on the ground that such findings and directions are ultra vires the powers of the Tribunal and since they constitute errors apparent on the face of the record. The 1st respondent is the Union of the Workers of the Iyyappan Mills and the 3rd respondent is the Chief Secretary to the Government of Kerala.

2. We would narrate the relevant facts necessary for the appreciation of the questions raised in this writ petition. The petitioner-Mills were started in 1954 with three separate industries or at least with three separate sections; the three sections being the Oil Mills, the Foundry and Engineering Works and lastly the Soap Works. Later on the Management resolved, for industrial and trade reasons, to close down the Oil Mills and the Foundry and Engineering Works and to retain only the Soap Works. Accordingly the Management issued notice to the workers and also to the Government of its intention to close the two sections from 1st July, 1955. The Management also made an offer to pay retrenchment compensation to the 51 workers on a basis according to law. Sixteen out of the total number of 51 workers received the amounts of compensation, but the remaining 35 repudiated the offer by their notice dated 5th July, 1955. The Management published its offer to pay compensation both on the notice board of the Mills as well as in a local daily.

Thereafter, since the 35 workers repudiated the offer of the Management, the Government of Travancore Cochin referred certain issues to the Industrial Tribunal, Trivandrum, for adjudication under S.10(1) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Later on there was a further reference of three more issues by the same Government to the same Tribunal. The petitioner-Mills challenged the legality of the aforesaid references by two writ petitions, Nos.156 and 167 of 1955, before the Travancore Cochin High Court mainly on the ground of want of jurisdiction, as in the second reference the closure of the industries was admitted. At the time of hearing of these writ petitions it was agreed before the High Court of Travancore Cochin that some of the questions referred did not arise and could not be referred for adjudication.

Therefore the High Court directed the Tribunal to drop one of the issues out of consideration, to deal with two other issues in so far as they related to the workmen of the Mills who were in employment on the date of the reference and also directed the Tribunal to consider, in dealing with the remaining issue, all the contentions of the parties including the contention of the Mills that the workmen of the closed sections were not entitled to any award of bonus on the ground that those sections were closed prior to the date of reference. This was the first stage in the dispute.

3. The Government thereafter withdrew the aforesaid reference from the Industrial Tribunal, Trivandrum, and made them over to the Industrial Tribunal, Ernakulam, in April, 1956, in the same terms. Consequently the petitioner-Mills filed two other writ petitions Nos.111 and 112 of 1956, before this Court. When these writ petitions came up for hearing in October 1957, this Court reiterated and re-recorded the agreed order passed in the two previous writ petitions. The contention of the petitioner Mills regarding the ultra vires nature of the references was rejected and the scope of the references and the jurisdiction of the Tribunal were delimited and defined by the order of the High Court.

The High Court indicated in the order that relief to workmen could arise only on a finding that the closure was not real and bona fide and therefore not justifiable and could arise only if the closure spelt in the realm of victimisation. The High Court also