Power of Government for referring the issue for adjudication by the Tribunal.

This is an application made under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue such directions, writs or orders as may be deemed appropriate to the case and in particular to call for the records of the proceedings in Industrial Dispute No. 5 of 1951 before the Industrial Tribunal, Madras, and to quash the award passed therein and the reference on which it is based and pass such further or other orders as may be deemed fit. The petitioner is the Indian Metal and Metallurgical "Corporation, a partnership firm and the affidavit in support of the application has been filed by one of its partners. The firm carries on inter alia the business of manufacture of brass, copper and aluminium sheets at Mettur. It has; also a factory at Tondiarpet in Madras where brass and stainless steel utensils are manufactured. On 3rd February, 1951, the management put up a notice as. follows:-

"The factory at Mettur Dam is closed and hence the raw materials for this factory are not coming. Owing to the serious developments in the foreign countries, the present condition in the-local market is far unfavourable to work. Further still many machineries are to be installed for economising production. So we are forced to suspend the work for an indefinite period till we are able to complete the erection and trial to get the sheets (raw materials) from our own plant. Therefore the work will be suspended from Saturday, 17th instant after the 14th day from to day."

In pursuance of the said notice a further notice was put up on 16th February, 1951, that payment of the wages due to the workmen would be made between. 17th February and 19th February, and subsequently the time for disbursement was further extended, but most of the workers did not turn up to receive their wages. On 18th April, 1951, the Government by their Order MS. 1762 referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal at Madras an industrial dispute alleged to have arisen between the workers and the management of the petitioner Corporation. In the annexure to the order were set out the four matters in dispute, namely:

1. Whether the closure of the factory from 17th February, 1951, is justified;

2. Whether any compensation is to be paid to the discharged workers;

3. Whether the discharged workers have preferential claim for re-employment at the time of the reopening of the factory; and

4. Whether the discharge of four workers, namely, P.A. Dilly, turner; T.D. Balakrishnan, turner; A. Raju, fitter; and G. Vasudevan, fitter, is justified.

On notice from the Industrial Tribunal to the petitioner calling upon the petitioner to present its statement after receipt of the workers’ statement, the petitioner filed a counter-affidavit demurring to the competency and validity of the order of reference, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and canvassing the merits of the case. The management also sought to impeach the order of reference made by the Government by an application made to this Court, but this Court felt that there was not sufficient material for deciding the question and also expressed the view that the petitioner may advance its pleas before the Tribunal. The matter eventually came up before the Tribunal and the Tribunal after an inquiry made an award on 25th June, 1951, directing the payment of all arrears of pay, etc., from 17th February, 1951, till they were taken back to work to a moiety of the personnel in the different branches, the selection being determined in the strict seniority, the reinstatement of the remaining personnel within a period of four months after the publication of the award and also directing the reinstatement of A. Raju (fitter) as from 7th February, 1951. The Industrial Tribunal went into the question whether the management was justified in closing the factory. He dealt with the several reasons put forward by the management for the closure. The first reason put forward was that necessary raw materials were not available for continuing the work of the factory. The Industrial