1946  Present: Dias J.

BROWN & CO., LTD., Petitioner, and Roberts,
Respondent.

303-Application for a write of certiorari against T. W. Roberts.

Writ of Certiorari-Essential services (Avoidance of Strikes and Lockouts) Order, 1942, s. 6-Meaning of ?trade dispute?-Power of Tribunal appointed to settle dispute.

K, a workman employed in an essential service, was dismissed by his employer, B & Co. Thereupon, the trade union to which K and a large number of other workmen in B & Co. belonged presented a petition on their behalf stating that K had been wrongly dismissed and that he should be reinstated.

Held, that a ?trade dispute? had arisen within the meaning of section 6 (2) of the Essential Services (Avoidance of Strikes and Lock-outs) Order, 1942.

Held, further, that the person appointed as tribunal to settle the dispute had jurisdiction to award damages to K on the ground of wrongful dismissal.

APPLICATION for a writ of certiorari

A labourer named Kittu who was employed under Messrs. Brown & Co., Ltd., an engineering firm, engaged in performing ?essential services? was dismissed from his employment. Complaint was made by a trade union on behalf of Kittu and ?a large number ?of other workmen employed in Messrs. Brown & Co., Ltd., that the dismissal of Kittu was  wrongful and that he should be reinstated. The controller of Labour, acting under section 6(2) of the Essential Services (Avoidance of Strikes and Lockouts) Order, 1942, reffered the dispute to Mr. T. W. Roberts for settlement. Mr. Roberts decided that Kittu had been dismissed without cause and that, without being reinstated, he should be awarded a sum of Rs. 250 as damages for the wrongful dismissal. Messrs. Brown & Co., Ltd., thereupon, made the present application for a writ of certiorari to quash the decision of Mr. T, W. Roberts on the ground that it was made without jurisdiction.

H. V. Perera, K. C. (with him E. F. N. Gratiaen and G. E. Chitty) for the petitioner-The petitioner moves for a mandate in the nature of a writ of certiorari to quash the decision and award of the tribunal set up under section 6 of the Essential Services (Avoidance of Strikes and Lockouts) Order of 1942 on the ground that it is void and of no effect as the tribunal had no jurisdiction to make it. In 1939 the Imperial Emergency Powers (Defence) Act was passes empowering the Governor to make Defence Regulations for certain purposes. Acting under these powers he issued defence Regulations 43 c enabling the establishment of a tribunal for the settlement of trade disputes in essential services in order to prevent strikes and lockouts in such services. In 1942, the Governor made an order under Regulation 43 C. ?Trade

Dispute? is defined Regulations 43 c (4) and in section(1) of the order of 1942 as follows:- ?a trade dispute means any dispute or difference between employers and workmen or between workmen and workmen, in or in connexion with, or incidental to the performance of any essential services?. This definition is not a wide as the definition  of a ?trade dispute? in the Trade union Ordinance or the definition of an ?industrial dispute? in the Industrial Dispute Ordinance. According to the definition in Defence Regulation 43 c, a trade dispute can only arise between two parties of which one party must be a set or class of workmen at the time the dispute arose. There is no trade dispute in this case because, firstly, only one workman and not a class was involved and, secondly, at the time the petition was presented Kittu was not a workman. Further, section 2(3) of the order of 1942 allows a union representing a single workman. The fact that a trade union takes up a workman?s dispute does not make it a trade dispute. In settling a trade dispute the tribunal cannot make any order it pleases. Neither the Defence Regulation nor the Order of 1942 states how a trade dispute may be settled. From section does