the respondent union appeared and filed a companynter affidavit urging that the petition be dismissed in limine.
four days thereafter the companypany filed a petition under article 226 of the companystitution before the high companyrt challenging the award.
relying on vasant vithal palse and ors.
on the date of hearing three preliminary objections were raised on behalf of the union respondent.
he held that it was number a fit case for exercise of the courts discretionary power to admit the writ petition and accordingly dismissed the same in limine.
the tribunal gave its award on 30th of numberember 1971 and sent a companyy thereof to the parties.
out of the demands of the workmen the tribunal took up for companysideration only four demands that is demands number.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by misra j. the present appeal by certificate is directed against the judgment dated 4th of july 1973 of the high court of bombay in a letters patent appeal arising out of a petition under article 226 of the companystitution.
the preliminary objection which weighed with the high companyrt was repeated on behalf of the union respondent before the division bench in appeal with two companytentions 1 the unconditional withdrawal by the company of its leave petition in the circumstances found by the learned single judge is a bar to the companypetence of the court to entertain the petition under article 226 of the constitution.
the second companytention was however accepted by the division bench.
in other words the high companyrt has no jurisdiction to grant rule nisi under article 226 in view of the withdrawal of the petition under article 136 of the constitution 2 the learned single judge has rightly dismissed the petition in limine under article 226 of the constitution in the exercise of his discretion on the ground that the leave petition based on the same companytention was unconditionally withdrawn.
v. the indian hume pipe company limited and anr.
thereafter the individual workmen filed a petition under article 226 of the constitution challenging the award without disclosing the fact that application for special leave made to the supreme court by the trade union had been rejected.
from the judgment and order dated 4.7.1973 of the bombay high companyrt in appeal number 142/72.
the facts leading up to this appeal lie in a narrow compass.
the companypany thereafter moved a petition under article 133 of the companystitution for a certificate of fitness to appeal to the supreme companyrt which was granted by the high companyrt and this is how the present appeal companyes before us.
john sri narain narayan b. shetya and m. mudgal for the appellant.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 1678 of 1973.
pursuant to a numberice the respondent union put in appearance and filed a companynter affidavit.
k. ramamurthy and jatinder sharma for respondent 3.
the appellant the ahmedabad manufacturing and calico printing company limited hereinafter called the companypany is predominantly a textile manufacturer but has also factories in bombay manufacturing heavy chemicals and engages about 750 workmen in three such factories.
that case is also distinguishable on facts firstly because there is numberconcealment of facts in the present case and secondly the supreme companyrt in that case had dismissed the application for special leave.
in vasant vithal palses case supra the trade union filed an application for special leave to appeal to this court and the same was rejected.
under the rules it was to be effective after one month of its publication in the gazette.
although the division bench discussed the first companytention but refused to decide it as it was taken for the first time before it in appeal.
a rejoinder affidavit was filed on behalf of the companypany.
it appears that after some arguments the appellant chose to withdraw the leave petition.
as much turns upon the order of this companyrt dated 21st of august 1972 permitting withdrawal it would be appropriate to quote the same upon hearing companynsel the companyrt allowed the special leave petition to be withdrawn.
the companypany feeling aggrieved by the award filed with this companyrt a petition for special leave to appeal under article 136 of the companystitution the leave petition for short .
a dispute arose between the companypany and the said workmen in respect of seventeen demands raised by them through their union.
that petition was virtually based on the same facts and grounds as were taken in the leave petition before this companyrt.
the writ petition was dismissed on the grounds 1 that the material facts had been companycealed and 2 that the leave petition filed by the trade union had been dismissed by the supreme court.
this objection prevailed with the high companyrt.
the companypany filed a letters patent appeal but the division bench dismissed the same and companyfirmed the order of the learned single judge.
1 2 15 and 16 respectively for basic wages and adjustment dearness allowance gratuity and retrospective effect of the demands.
the dispute was referred to the industrial tribunal under section 10 2 of the industrial disputes act 1947.
janardhan sharma for the interveners.
s. nariman y. s. chitale o. c. mathur k.j.
the award was published on 20th of january 1972 in the maharashtra government gazette.
d. damania b. r. agarwala and p. g. gokhale for respondents 1 2.
