Back
Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench
Ranawat & Dave, JJ.
Maharaja Kishangarh Mills Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
The State of Rajasthan - Respondents
Writ Application No. 651 of 1952
Decided On : February 26, 1953
It is true that a lock-out itself may be the subject-matter of a dispute which might be referred to an Industrial Tribunal under sec. 10(1) or 10(2) of Industrial Disputes Act. It is also clear that sec. 10(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act leaves it within the discretion of the Government to prohibit the continuance of a strike or lock-out in connection with a dispute which might have been referred by it to an Industrial Tribunal. Where, therefore, a lockout or a strike has been resorted to by any one of the parties to an industrial dispute and where such strike or lock-out is in connection with such dispute an order under sec. 10(3) might be made for prohibiting the continuance of such strike or lock-out. But where the strike or lock-out is not in connection with any dispute but is itself a dispute it cannot be said that an order under sec. 10(3) could be made within its meaning. In order that the strike or lookout may be in connection with a dispute it is necessary that the strike or lockout should be something different from the dispute itself. A strike or lock-out which is the subject-matter of the dispute itself cannot be termed to be a strike or lock-out in connection with such a dispute within the meaning of sec. 10(3). A strike or lock-out which is itself a dispute would not justify an order under sec. 10(3) for its prohibition because the language of sec. 10(3) requires that a strike or lock-out should be in connection with a dispute in order that an order for its prohibition might be made by the Government. Where the strike is not in connection with a dispute but is itself a dispute the matter is quite different and would not justify an order of prohibition. (Para 11)
The purpose of the Industrial Disputes Act is to harmonise the relation between the employer and employees and it is not contemplated by the Act that the employer or the employees should be deprived of their property. Where the petitioner, apprehending heavy losses, closed down the mills it was held that he could not be forced, to work the mills which might entail losses to him. To force the petitioner to work the mills with the result that he would be made to suffer losses amounts to depriving him of property within the meaning of Art. 31(1) of the Constitution. (Para 15)
Fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution to citizens are available to corporations as well, except where the language of the provisions and the nature of the right compels an inference to the contrary. Where the petitioner, Maharaja Kishangarh Mills Ltd , closed down the mills in apprehension of losses and the Government, under sec. 10(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act prohibited the petitioner from closing down the mills, it was held that, the business of the petitioner not being of the nature of public utility nor having been started under any assistance from the Government, the fundamental right of the petitioner would be regarded as infringed by the order of the Government. In such circumstances interference by the Government in the matter of continuance of his business cannot be deemed to be reasonable in the meaning of Art. 19 of the Constitution of India. (Para 22)
A writ of mandamus does lie to control administrative acts where such acts interfere with the private rights of citizens and where the exercise of such acts is arbitrary or illegal. Thus where the order of the Government (under sec. 10(3) Industrial Disputes Act) directing the petitioner to work the mills was not within the scope of the provisions of law and was not warranted under the law it was held that it was open to the High Court to grant relief by issuing an appropriate writ or direction. (Para 26)
2. It is alleged on behalf of the petitioner that for some time past the Mills were running at a heavy loss and as there was no hope of running them at a profit the petitioner closed the Mills on the 19th of Oct., 1952, which resulted in unemployment of labour. The Government of Rajasthan, it is said, intervened and the petitioner agreed to work the Mills subject to the condition that an expert, who had been appointed to hold an inquiry into the affairs of the Mills, should complete the inquiry within 10 days and that if the finding of the expert would be that it would be uneconomical to run the Mills in the present conditions the Mills would be closed, or if the inquiry did not finish within 10 days time the working of the Mills would again be stopped. On a request made by the petitioner the Government of Rajasthan secured the service of Mr. Dutta to inquire into the affairs of the Mills and to report how far the working of the Mills was economical under the present conditions. Mr. Dutta submitted his report to the Government but the Government did not supply it to the petitioner. However, the petitioner thought that the result of the inquiry made by Mr. Dutta supported the view that under the present conditions the working of the Mills could not be undertaken without heavy losses. As it is said it was absolutely impossible to work the Mills without incurring losses the petitioner was forced to close down the Mills again on the 19th November 1952. Thereafter, it is said, the Mill labourers indulged in irresponsible and violent activities to the prejudice of the petitioner. The Government of Rajasthan by their Notification No. F. 25(1/Lab.) 1., of the 25th of November 1952 constituted an Industrial Tribunal for the District of Jaipur and appointed Mr. D. C. Sharma as a Member of such Tribunal. This Tribunal was constituted of one Member only. By a further Notification of the same date, which is as follows, a reference was made to the Industrial Tribunal :—
"No. F. 25(1) Lab./52/2.—Whereas an Industrial Dispute exists between M/s. the Maharaja Kishangarh Mills Ltd., Kishangarh, and their workmen sponsored by the Kishangarh Mill Rashtriya Mazdoor Congress, Kishangarh, in respect of the matters specified in the schedule hereto annexed; And whereas the Government of Rajasthan considers it desirable to refer the dispute to an Industrial Tribunal for adjudication.
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (c) of sub-sec. (1) of sec. 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act No. XIV of 1947), the Government of Rajasthan is pleased to refer the said dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal constituted under sec. 7 of the said Act by a Notification of the State Government in the Department of Labour No. F. 25(1) Lab./52/l, dated the 25th November 1952."
3. The Government then made an order under sec. 10(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947 enjoining it on the petitioner to withdraw the lock-out at once. The petitioner, it is said, did not resort to lock-out but closed down the Mills on account of heavy losses. The reference made by the Government to the Industrial Tribunal, is, it is said, beyond the scope of the Industrial Disputes Act and the order to work the Mills amounts to an infringement of the fundamental rights of the petitioner under Art. 19(l)(g) and Art. 31(1) of the Constitution of India. The petitioner, therefore, prayed that a writ of mandamus or other appropriate direction be issued declaring the reference to the Industrial Tribunal to be illegal and
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
