Provisions made held a reasonable restriction on fundamental rights.

This is an application for issuing a writ of certiorari to call for the records and quash the notification of Government in G.O. No. 4605, Development Department, dated 19th October, 1951 or to issue an order in the nature of mandamus directing the Industrial Tribunal, Madurai, to forbear from proceeding with the reference made by the Government. The petitioner is the Dindigul Skin Merchants Association. That Association was formed to represent the employers of about nineteen tanneries. In regard to the employees working in those tanneries there are three associations, (1) the National Tanneries Workers Association, Dindigul registered on 5th July, 1948, (2) Tanneries Labour Union, Dindigul formed on 20th November, 1950 and (3) The Tannery Workers Union, Dindigul, registered in the year 1942. It was banned by Government in September, 1949. The ban was lifted in November, 1950 and it began to function again from April, 1951. The total number of members on the books in regard to the first union was 511, on 31st March, 1951. The membership of the 3rd respondent was 194 on 31st March, 1951. The fourth respondent had 420 members on 31st March, 1947. There were disputes between the employees and the employers and an agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the National Tannery Workers Association, settling their disputes on 1st February, 1951. It is not clear from the record what the total membership of that union was on 1st February, 1951. It is either because that union did not represent majority of the labourers or because that the other unions did not agree with them, there were subsequent disputes between the employers and the employees, and an attempt was made to get their disputes settled by a Conciliation officer. Respondents 3 and 4 made their demands and copies of them were sent to the petitioner. The Conciliation officer made are, infructuous attempt to settle the disputes and finally recommended to the Government that the disputes might be referred for adjudication on the four issues relating to basic wages, dearness allowance, bonus and weekly holiday for all workers on, Sundays in respect of eight tanneries about which he was able to gather particulars. The Commissioner of Labour also agreed with the Labour officer and supported his recommendation and the Government after considering the reports referred the dispute in respect of the eight tanneries to the Industrial Tribunal, Madurai, for adjudication on the above four points by issuing G.O. No. 4605, Development Department, dated 19th May, 1951.

Mr. Narasaraju, the learned counsel for the petitioner raised before me the following points:-

(1) The Industrial Disputes Act of 1947 (Act XIV of 1947) is vitiated in so far as it affected the fundamental right of the petitioner to carry on his trade and to enter into agreements for effectively carrying on the trade. He says that the Act which allows the employers or the employees to ignore contracts affects his fundamental right.

(2) It has not been established that there is an industrial dispute between the employers and the employees of every tannery.

(3) There was no demand by the employees before the Conciliation proceedings started.

Learned counsel in support of his first contention relies upon Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India which reads:

“All citizens shall have the right to practise any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.”

Article 19(6) says:

“Nothing in sub-clause (g) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevents the State from making any law imposing, in the interests of the general public, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause.....”

The question therefore is whether the provisions of Act XIV of 1947 compelling, the parties to an industrial dispute to get their disputes settled through the bodies mentioned therein is a reasonable restriction on the aforesaid ri