Rajamannar, C.J. —

This is an appeal against the judgment of Rajagopalan, J., dismissing a petition filed by the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash an order of the Chairman, Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Madras, dated 23rd March, 1956, in the following circumstances. The appellant is the management of a Restaurant carrying on business in Madras under the name and style of Arya Bhavan. In 1953 the appellant dismissed one of its employees, one Janardhana Bhatt on the ground that he was engaged in a scuffle with a customer of the restaurant and assaulted him in the course of the quarrel. This led to a reference by the Government of Madras of an industrial dispute between the workers and the management of Arya Bhavan, Madras, with respect to the justification of the dismissal of the said Janardhana Bhatt. The workers were represented by the City Hotel Workers’ Association. The Industrial Tribunal made an award that the dismissal of Janardhana Bhatt was unjustified and directed that he should be reinstated with back wages from the date of his dismissal to the date of his reinstatement. The Government duly notified the award by their order, dated 27th January, 1954. Against this award the appellant preferred an appeal to the Labour Appellate Tribunal, Madras, on 25th February, 1954. While the appeal was pending the appellant dismissed on 29th April, 1954, the contesting respondent, M. S. Narayana Rao on the ground that he was found guilty of stealing. Thereupon the respondent filed an application before the Labour Appellate Tribunal under section 23 of the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950. That application was eventually disposed of by the Chairman, Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Madras, by his Order, dated 23rd March, 1956. Before the Appellate Tribunal objection was raised by the management that the respondent was not entitled to file an application as he was not a " workman concerned " in the appeal but this objection was overruled. The Appellate Tribunal went into the merits of the case also and held that the dismissal of the respondent was not justified. The Tribunal, therefore, directed the management to reinstate the respondent and pay him arrears of wages. To quash this order the appellant filed a petition from which this appeal arises. The main ground taken before Rajagopalan, J., before whom the petition came on for final disposal was that the respondent was not entitled to file any application as he would not be a " workman concerned " in the appeal pending before the Appellate Tribunal in the matter of Janardhana Bhatt. Rajagopalan, J., held against the appellant. Hence this appeal.

Section 22 of the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950 (Act XLVIII of 1950) runs thus: —

"During the period of 30 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 (b) discharge or punish whether by dismissal or otherwise, any workmen concerned in such appeal save with the express permission in writing of the Appellate Tribunal".

The contention of Mr. R. M. Seshadri, learned counsel for the management was that the appeal pending before the Appellate Tribunal related to the propriety of the dismissal of a single workman and it cannot be said that any other workmen " were concerned " in such an appeal. His contention is thus set out in the affidavit filed by the appellant:

"In this case the first respondent is in no manner and by no means connected with or concerned an the appeal pending before the Labour Appellate Tribunal which was in relation to the personal misconduct of an employee of the petitioner involved in an incident of beating a customer."

On behalf of the workers it was contended that a res

Click Here to Read the rest of this document