Jurisdiction of Appellate tribunal of interference with decision of Industrial Tribunal.

This is an application for issuing a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India at Bombay. The petitioners who are 46 in number were workmen employed by the Madras Electric Tramways, Ltd. On the 17th of February, 1950, some of the workers met the Agent of the Company and discussed with him their disputes relating to bonus for the year 1949, reinstatement of 13 discharged men and the cancellation of fine on the motormen. After some discussion they dispersed. On the afternoon of 20th February, a large number of workers gathered near the entrance and passages leading to the Agent’s room. The management contends that the adjourned meeting was fixed to take place on the 18th whereas the labourers stated that it was adjourned to 20th. On the 20th, the Agent refused to receive their representatives unless the five representatives who met him on the 18th came again. The labourers insisted upon two of their leaders Ranganathan and Subramaniam to be members of the deputation. The Agent refused to meet them as they belonged to an association banned by the Government. In the evening the Agent asked them to disperse and even threatened to bring in police help if they did not go outside the office building. Though the labourers left the office building they spent the night in the open space near by. Next morning some other workers joined them. The strikers were estimated to be about 200 strong. On the 22nd instead of giving to the workers the time-sheets the management gave them certain memoranda wherein it was stated that time-sheets would not be given until the explanation called for was submitted and accepted by the management. At about 9-30 or 10 a.m., the Deputy Commissioner of Police came to the spot and persuaded the Agent to receive the deputation. The workers met the Agent but the meeting did not yield any successful result. The Agent explained to them the difficulties of the management to meet out their demands but the labourers were dissatisfied and they did not leave the premises. The management wrote to the Commissioner of Police requesting him to take necessary steps to remove the strikers. At 6 p.m., on the 22nd the police arrived on the scene and arrested 51 men who were sitting in the maidan. During this period the workers were shouting slogans “Down with Agent,” “Down with the Labour Office,” and “Down with the Traffic Manager” and were also creating noise which must have disturbed the office working. But there was no violence land no untoward event happened. The strike involving about 100 illiterate labourers, whether their grievances were true or only imaginary went off peacefully. The arrested persons were produced before the Presidency Magistrate. The Magistrate found all the 51 persons guilty under sections 71(16) and 75 of the City Police Act and sentenced them to one month’s rigorous imprisonment under each count with the direction that the sentence should run concurrently. The Magistrate held that they behaved in a disorderly manner in the office of the Madras Electric Tramways, Ltd. Section 71(16) relates to the affixing or causing to be affixed of a bill, document or paper upon any building without the consent of its owner or in any manner defacing or disfiguring the building. Section 75 of the Act relates to violent, disorderly or indecent behaviour in any court, office or station. The Magistrate held that the workers pasted or caused to be pasted on the company’s walls notices bearing their slogans and demands without the consent of the Madras Electric Tramways, Ltd., the owner of the building. In revision the High Court set aside the convictions on the ground that no reasonable opportunity was given to the accused persons to defend themselves and that they had no fair trial. The petitioners were acquitted. On the 13th of March, 1950, the workers approached the management and requested to reinstate them on the ground that the High Court had acquitted them of all the