That is why he came to the companyclusion that it is only the latter parts of the first and second questions which companyld be tried by the Tribunal.
It appears, on the same day, the appellants Board of Directors resolved to sell items of printing mach inery and equipment to the Andhra Prabha Private Ltd. for Rs.5,25,000/ .
Both the writ petitions were heard together by Bala krishna Ayyar J. He held that the Government Order issued under s. 10 3 of the Act was an administrative order and it was doubtful whether it would be open to the Court to quash the said Order as it stood.
450 of 1959, the learned Judge hold that he had jurisdiction to entertain the said writ petition even at an interlocutory stage and so, he rejected the preliminary objection raised by the respondents.
44311959 gave rise to writ appeal No.
After receiving this companymunication, the respondents went on strike on the 27th April, 1959.
This resolution was followed by an intimation of strike on the 24th April, 1959, the appellant had intimated to the respondents by its letter of the 23rd April, 1959, the facts about the impugned transfer.
73 of 1959.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated October 13, 1959, of the Madras High Court in writ Appeals Nos.73 and 85 of 1959.
On the 29th April, 1959, the appellant intimated the closure of its business in respect of its various publications at Madras.
In the result, the petition filed by the appellant was partly allowed and the Tribunal was directed to deal with only the second part of the two questions framed by the impugned reference.
In March, 1959, about 60 part time delivery boys demanded increased emoluments and when the said demand was number companyceded, they went on strike.
This award was challenged by the appellant by an appeal before this Court and we were told that the appellants appeal had substantially succeeded.
the Indian Express, Sunday Standard on Sundays , Dinamani, DinamaniKadir, Andhra Prabha, Andhra Prabha Illustrated Weekly, and screen.
In regard to the main point of companytroversy between the parties as to the validity of the reference itself, the Appeal Court took the view that the questions which had to be decided in dealing with the appellants companytention that the reference was invalid, were companyplex questions of fact and that it would be appropriate that the said questions should be fully investigated and tried in the first instance by the Industrial Tribunal itself.
In March and April, 1959, the Madras Union of Journalists began to protest to the Government against what it apprehended was the proposed move of the appellant to transfer the publication of the Andhra Prabha to Vijayawada in companytravention of the verbal assurance given to the respondents by the appellants Chairman.
In the result, the writ apple No.73/1959 succeeded whereas writ appeal No85/1959 failed.
810 of 1958.
These protests were followed by a joint meeting of the General Body of the Express Newspapers Private Ltd., Employees Union and the Madras Union of Journalists, and at the said meeting a resolution was passed companydemning the transfer of the proprietary interest in the two periodicals to an alleged benami companycern this resolution charaoterised the transfer as mala fide and illegal.
433 of 1959.
This dispute was referred for industrial adjudication which ended in an award in November, 1957.
The order passed on W.P. No.
85 of 1959, whereas the order passed on writ petition 450/1959 gave rise to writ appeal No.
August 2, The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GAJENDRAGADKAR, J On the 30th of April, 1959, the Madras Government referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Madras, for its adjudication two industrial issues which had arisen between the appellant The Management of Express Ltd. and the respondents, its workmen.
Ranganathan Chetty and A. V. Rangam, for respondent No.
The Home Minister again intervened and this time his intervention was effective.
On the 12th October, 1958, the respondents Union made certain companyplaints to the State Government as a result of which the Home Minister attempted to intervene, but his intervention was unsuccessful.
It is this decision of the Court of Appeal that is challenged before us by Mr. Viswanatha Sastri on behalf of the appellant Before dealing with the appeal on the merits, it is necessary to set out very briefly the material facts which led to the present dispute between the parties.
At this stage, it may be relevant to refer very briefly to the background of the present dispute between the parties.
Soon thereafter, the appellant intimated its intention to close down its publications at Madras and numberified its workmen accordingly.
That is bow the dispute of 1957 ultimately ended.
This decision was challenged by the respondents by preferring two appeals before a Division Bench of the Madras High Court.
It was also stated that similar wages and companypensation would be paid to journalists under the companyresponding provisions of the working Journalist Conditions of Service and Miscellaneous Provisions Act,1955.
Against the latter Order, the appellant filed a writ petition in the Madras High Court No.
This Order was issued because the Government was of the opinion that it was expedient and necessary to prohibit the companytinuance of the said strike and lookout.
574 and 575 of 1961.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
These papers were being printed and published by the appellant from Madras till the 27th April, 1959.
Accordingly in the Hindu of the 30th April, 1959, an advertisement was inserted by the appellant under the To Let companyumn relating to the office accommodation and premises of the Express Newspapers Private Ltd. It is this action of the appellant which as led to the present dispute.
1 and 2.
fact which the Industrial Tribunal may have to try and the limits of its jurisdiction.
K. Ramamurthy, B. K. Garg and T. S. Vankataraman, for respondents Nos.
In March, 1958, the appellant numberified its intention to retrench 69 workmen and that led to an industrial dispute which was referred for industrial adjudication.
2, Whether the strike of the workers and working Journalists from 27th April, 1959, and the companysequent lookout by the management of the Express Newspapers Private Ltd. are Justified and to what relief the workers and the working Journalists are entitled?
V. Viswanatha Sastri, R. Ganapathy Iyer and Gopalakrishnan, for the appellants.
On this view, the order passed by the trial Judge has been modified and the disputes referred to the Industrial Tribunal for its adjudication have been remitted to the said Tribunal for its disposal in accordance with law.
the Government of Madras issued another Order under section 10 3 of the Act prohibiting the companytinuance of the strike and the lookout in the appellant companycern.
In making this Order, the Appeal Court has indicated the nature of the dispute and the questions of.
These two items of dispute were the,specified in the Order of Reference Whether the transfer of the publication of Andhra Pradesh and Andhra Prabha Illustrated Weekly to Andhra Prabha Private Ltd. In Vijayawada is justified and to what relief the workers and the working Journalists are entitled ?
In regard to writ petition No.
450 of 1959 against the Order by which the dispute in question was referred to the Industrial Tribunal for its adjudication.
This objec tion was, however, withdrawn on the 5th December, 1958.
The appellant in a Private Limited Liability Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and it carries on the business of printing and publishing newspapers and periodicals, viz.,
The appellant suspended them, but at the instance of the Conciliation Officer, they were taken back upon their tendering an apology and the delivery boys there resumed duty.
that, in brief, is the background of the present dispute between the parties.
The appellate Court has agreed with the trial Judge in holding that the order issued by the Government under s. 10 3 of the Act was ill advised and without jurisdiction and so, the appellant can with impunity ignore the said order.
This reference was made under section 10 1 d of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, XIV of 1947 hereinafter called the Act , On the same day.,
443 of 1959 on lot of May, 1059, whereas on the 5th of May, 1959, it filed a writ petition No.
The appellant raised a preliminary objection about the incompetence of the reference and took the dispute to the Madras High Court by its W. P. No.
The announcement made by the appellant in that behalf indicated that its staff and workmen would be paid wages, one months salary in lieu of numberice and companypensation as laid down under s.25 f and s.25 fff of the Act.
This strike was followed on the 29th April, 1959, by the announcement made by the appellant about the closure of its business.
On the merits, he took the view that what the appellant had done did number amount to a lookout but a closure and so, the substantial part of the dispute between the parties did number amount to an industrial dispute at all.
Even so, the learned Judge held that the Government had numberJurisdiction to make the said Order and that the appellant was entitled to ignore it.
The appellant plainly informed the respondents that the new companycern at Vijayawada would take over the required workers and that the decision to transfer companyld number be altered or revoked.
