Jurisdiction of Tribunal to decide certain questions in appeal.

This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari to set aside the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Madras, dated 7th September, 1953.

The petitioner was the sole proprietor, of the business, which he carried on under the name of Photo Litho Press, Madras. On 20th February, 1953, the workers through their Union made certain demands of their employer, the petitioner, which he did not comply with. Conciliation proceedings were commenced under the Industrial Disputes Act, on 26th March, 1953. During the pendency of those proceedings, on 11th April, 1953, the petitioner issued a notice in the following terms:

“Owing to my domestic and other circumstances, I am unable to run the Press for sometime. I regret to inform all the employees of the Press that their services will not be required from to-day. They will however be paid one month’s wages in lieu of notice and may receive the wages due to them up to date from the Office on Tuesday the 14th Instant. Such of those who have uncompleted work on hand will please complete it as early as possible and then stop away.”

The Conciliation Officer eventually reported failure to effect a conciliation between the employer and the employees of the Photo Litho Press. On 7th July, 1953, the Government of Madras exercised its powers under section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, XIV of 1947. The Industrial Disputes referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Madras, for adjudication was

“whether the closure of the factory on and from nth April, 1953, is justified and if not to what compensation the workers are entitled.”

The award of the Industrial Tribunal, Madras, dated 7th September, 1953, which was published in the Fort St. George Gazette, dated 30th September, 1953, was printed in (1954) 1 Lab. L. J. 107 (Madras Press Labour Union v. Photo Litho Press, Madras). The Tribunal rejected the plea of the petitioner, that it was a case of discontinuance of business by its owner, and that such discontinuance could not constitute an industrial dispute at all. The Tribunal found that the petitioner failed to prove his case, that there was a sale of his business to a limited liability concern, which was incorporated under the name of the Photo Litho Press, Ltd. The Tribunal upheld the plea of the workers, that in effect the notice issued by the petitioner on 11th April, 1953, constituted a declaration of a lock-out and that the lock-out was illegal. The reliefs granted by the Tribunal to the workers may be left out of consideration, as they do not affect the determination of the question at issue before me - was what was referred by the Government on 7th July, 1953, an industrial dispute at all within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act ?

Though the description of the dispute by the Government in the order of reference it issued under section 10(1)(c) of the Act cannot by itself conclude the question at issue, the Government did not in express terms ask the Industrial Tribunal to decide whether the closure of the petitioner’s business was justified or not. Whether the closure of the petitioner’s factory on 11th April, 1953, constituted a discontinuance of business, which was the plea of the petitioner, or whether it amounted to an illegal lock-out, that was the plea of the workers, was thus one of the questions the Industrial Tribunal had to decide. If it had been a case of discontinuance of business by its owner, that would not have amounted to an industrial dispute as defined by the Industrial Disputes Act. A Division Bench of this Court consisting of the learned Chief Justice and Venkatarama Ayyar, J., made that clear in The Indian Metal and Metallurgical Corporation v. Industrial Tribunal, Madras1. The scope of that decision was explained by the same learned Judges in L. P. A. No. 226 of 1952. The decision in that case was reported in Jaya Bharat Tiles Works v. State of Madras2. It was not the claim of the petitioner, that what he did on