( 1. ) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by M/s Jiyajeerao Cotton Mills Ltd. , a company incorporated under the indian Companies Act and its Factory Manager for the issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing an order of the Industrial Court, Madhya Pradesh, dated 12th May 1969, directing that the non-petitioner No 1 Kamal Singh should be classified as a Supervisor and not as a Jobber and should be treated as such and that he shall be entitled to all the privileges attached to that post.

( 2. ) SHORTLY stated, the facts are that the non-petitioner No. 1 has been working as a Supervisor in the Reeling Department of the Mills since the year 1957 but he had not been given the post and pay of a Supervisor. After serving an approach notice on the management, he made an application before the Labour Court, Gwalior, under section 31 (3) of the M. P. Industrial relations Act, 1960), seeking a declaration that he should be properly classified as a Supervisor and not as a Jobber. Though the Labour Court held that he had, in fact, been working as a Supervisor since the year 1957, it had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the question as regards the classification of the post. That decision proceeded on the view, firstly that the demand, in essence, was in regard to promotion, which was a management function, and not in respect of classification pest, falling within the purview of Rule 2 of the standard Standing Orders which form an Annexure to the Madhya Pradesh industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1963 and, therefore, it had no jurisdiction to pass any orders in respect to it; and secondly, that copies of the approach notice were not served on the Labour Commissioner and the government Labour Officer as required under Rule 34 of the M. P. Industrial relations Rules, 1961.

( 3. ) BEING aggrieved, the non-petitioner No. 1 preferred a revision before the Industrial Court, Madhya Pradesh. The Industrial Court held that the case of the non-petitioner. No. 1 was not that he wanted promotion to the post of a Supervisor but he wanted that he should be classified as a Supervisor and not as a Jobber since he has been working as a Supervisor for several years. On a true construction of the application under section 31 (3), it was not a case of promotion but it was a case of classification and, therefore, was a matter within the jurisdiction of the Labour Court. In its view, the Labour court had to test the propriety and legality of the action taken by the management in regard to the classification of the employee. Following the view in chalchitra Karmachari Sangh v. Proprietor, Regal Talkies Gwalior (1963 MTLT 721) the Industrial court remanded the case to the Labour Court for a fresh adjudication on the ground that when it came to the conclusion that it had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute before it, the opinion expressed by it on the merits of the dispute was, in law, totally ineffective and could not, in any sense, be regarded as an adjudication of the dispute.

( 4. ) WITH regard to the second point, the Industrial Court held that the petitioners never raised the plea, at any stage of the proceedings before the labour Court that copies of the approach notice were not given to the Labour commissioner and the Government Labour Officer nor was there any issue framed on it. Should the Labour Court regard this question, even in the absence of a plea, to be of importance, it should frame an issue and allow the parties to lead evidence thereon. The revision was accordingly allowed and the case was sent back to the Labour Court for deciding the case afresh.

( 5. ) ON remand, the Labour Court found, as a fact, that the non-petitioner no. 1 has been working on the vacant post of a Supervisor in the Reeling department since 1957 but has not been given the pay and the grade of that post. Nevertheless, it held that it had no jurisdiction in the matter. The relevant observations in regard to this ques