This Letters Patent Appeal is against an order of Mack, J., while presiding over the Second Criminal Sessions of the High Court. The learned Judge held that the appellant had committed ex facie contempt of Court on the 30th April, 1954 and affording to the appellant an opportunity to show cause why he should not be committed for contempt found him guilty and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000. The appeal is against this order of Mack, J., convicting the appellant and sentencing him to the punishment above mentioned.

We are not now concerned with the details of the contempt alleged or the merits of the contentions raised by the appellant in this appeal, as the question which we have now to decide merely relates to a preliminary objection that the appeal itself is incompetent under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

In order to appreciate how the case has arisen it would be convenient to set out in brief outline the matters that led to the present proceedings. Mr. Justice Mack was appointed by the State of Madras under section 7 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as the sole member of an Industrial Tribunal to adjudicate upon an industrial dispute which existed between the workers and the management of a concern known as the Amalgamation Limited. After the award was delivered and the same was published by the State Government under section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, certain comments appeared in The Madras Mail a newspaper published in the city, which was one of the concerns which was a party to the dispute before the learned Judge sitting as an Industrial Tribunal. The learned Judge considering these comments to be in the nature of a contempt of himself issued notice to the Editor of the said newspaper. The appellant who is the State Prosecutor of Madras and who appeared as counsel for the employers before the Industrial Tribunal-including the newspaper The Madras Mail-filed an answer to this notice denying the jurisdiction of the learned Judge to deal with the newspaper for contempt and also denying that the article constituted any contempt. When this matter was being enquired into by Mack, J., on 14th April, 1954, the learned Judge took exception to the manner in which counsel refused to answer certain questions put to him and directed that notice be given to him to show cause why proceedings for contempt should not be initiated against him for declining to answer these questions. Thereupon the appellant filed an application before this Court for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the proceedings before Mack, J., as an Industrial Tribunal as beyond his jurisdiction. A bench of this Court admitted this application and directed stay of proceedings before Mack, J. As the questions raised by the appellant in the writ of certiorari were of great importance, Mack, J., agreed to refer the question of his jurisdiction to a Full Bench and the stay of proceedings before him was dissolved. In pursuance of this, Mack, J., referred the question of his jurisdiction to deal with the alleged contempt in the newspaper and the conduct of the counsel before him on 14th April, 1954, to a Full Bench. The matter has been heard and is pending judgment.

Subsequent to the issue of this notice and the proceedings before the Bench in the matter of the writ of certiorari referred to certain things were said in Court by the Judge and by the appellant, on the 30th April, 1954, which was a Friday relating to what was reported to have happened before the Bench when admitting the writ of certiorari. The proceedings of this day were reported in all the newspapers on 30th April and 1st May, 1954 and the learned Judge considered the remarks made by the appellant on 30th April, and his conduct on that day as constituting contempt of this Court. It may be mentioned that the learned Judge was on the 30th April, 1954, sitting in Sessions and the State Prosecutor was in charge of the prosecutions before him. On Monday, the 3rd May, 1954