Desire of several persons to enforce their separate claims.

By an Order, G.O. Ms. No. 3961, Industries, Labour and Co-operation, dated the 2nd December, 1957, the Government of Madras referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Madras, for adjudication, various issues relating to the wages, dearness allowance, bonus and holidays with pay, arising between thirty industrial establishments or concerns in Salem, which are engaged in dyeing yarn or cloth, and the persons working in those establishments.

The managements took the preliminary objection that the reference was incompetent.

"As there was no industrial dispute at all, since there was no relationship of employer and employee or master and servant between the parties."

Two of the managements concerned took the special plea that there was no dispute whatever between them and their employees.

The Tribunal overruled the objections and passed an award on 9th May, 1958. In respect of dearness allowance the Tribunal held that only three factories were in a position to pay any special dearness allowances, and these were directed to pay dearness allowance, at the rate of Rs. 10 per month for every worker. The question of bonus was also considered unit by unit. In some cases the Tribunal found that there was no surplus out of which bonus could be paid. In other cases the Tribunal directed payment of bonus at varying rates.

This award was published by the Government of Madras in the Fort St. George Gazette on 2nd July, 1958.

The managements of all the thirty concerns affected by the order of the Tribunal have now come up to this Court, for the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ to quash the order of the Tribunal.

The petition now sought to be filed is a single one by all the managements together. The office took the objection, that each management should file a separate petition which meant in effect that a separate Court-fee should be paid by the management of each of the concerns. The advocates concerned demurred to this and asked that the matter be posted before Court.

In view of the apparent conflict of decisions on this point the matter has been posted before a Bench.

Section 4 of the Madras Court-fees Act, which is the charging section, gives no guidance on this matter, nor the rules framed by this Court under Article 225 of the Constitution. The investigation has therefore to go further back.

The position is thus summarised in paragraph 155 at page 83 of Vol. II of Halsbury’s Laws of England:

"Enforcement of separate claims.-Two persons cannot join in a single application for an order of mandamus to enforce separate claims. There must be separate applications for separate orders, and that although the several applicants are successors in the office in respect of which the claims arise (Ex parte Scott and Hogan)1".

We have not been able to see the case cited in the foot-note as an authority for this proposition.

The case of The King against the City of Chester2, is even older. That "was a mandamus to restore nine persons to their places of common-councilmen in Chester". In dismissing the application Holt, Chief Justice, observed as follows:

"And here you ought to have brought several mandamuses: for, nine persons cannot join in a mandamus, as here; perhaps you were chosen at nine several times. You cannot all join in one writ, for the election of one is not the election of another. This is an innovation to join nine men in one writ of mandamus: can we grant a joint restitution to them ? It is a several interest. Tenants in common cannot join in one action, though they come in by one feoffment; the amotion of one is not the amotion of the other; and it may be for several faults, one for forfeiture, the others for other reasons. I think the writ ought to be quashed."

Adopting the language of the learned Chief Justice, one may say in the present case that the direction of the Tribunal that wages, bonus and dearness allowance should be paid at certain rates was a direction to each of the concerns, and the direction to