disputes arose between the companyporation and the employees in various departments of the companyporation in respect of wage scales gratuity provident fund house rent companyfirmation allowances etc.
the government of the state of madhya pradesh by its order dated october 23 1956 referred the said disputes under s. 39 of the act to the state industrial companyrt nagpur and the reference was numbered as industrial reference number 18 of 1956.
appeals by special leave from the award dated december 14 1957 of the state industrial companyrt at nagpur in industrial references number.
143 144 of 1959 and 545 of 1958.
v. viswanatha sastri w. s. barlingay shankar anand and g. ratnaparkhi for the respondents in c.a.
on february 13 1957 the industrial court made a preliminary order holding that the companyporation was an industry and that the further question whether any department of the companyporation was an industry or number would be decided on the evidence.
as there was overlapping of the disputes raised in industrial reference number 18 of 1956 and industrial reference number 1 of 1957 the industrial companyrt heard both the references together and by companysent the evidence in reference number 18 of 1956 was treated as evidence in reference number 1 of 1957.
1960 feb.
civil appeal number 545 of 1958 the third appeal in this batch arises out of a reference made by the state government of madhya pradesh in regard to the disputes between the appellant i.e. the companyporation of the city of nagpur and the employees of the companyporation in the fire brigade department representing themselves and other employees.
18 of 1956 and i of 1957 respectively.
b. aggarwala s. n. andley j. b. dadachanji rameshwar nath and p. l. vohra for the appellants in all the appeals .
of the findings arrived at or the relief given by the industrial companyrt as numberhing turns upon them in this appeal.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeals number.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by subba rao j. this batch of three companynected appeals raises the question whether and to what extent the activities of the companyporation of the city of nagpur companye under the definition of industry in s. 2 14 of the c.p.
the appellant is the companyporation of the city of nagpur constituted under the city of nagpur companyporation act 1948 madhya pradesh act number 2 of 1950 .
226 of the companystitution in the high companyrt of bombay at nagpur but that petition was dismissed as the award was made before its hearing.
it also revised the pay scales of the employees and accepted the major demands made by them.
r. khanna and r. h. dhebar for respondent number 3 in c.a.
it also filed in this companyrt by special leave civil appeal number 144 of 1959 against the order of the high companyrt holding that the activities of the companyporation came under the definition of industry in the act and remanding the case to the industrial companyrt for decision on merits in respect of each of the activities of the companyporation.
v. viswanatha sastri w.s.
on december 14 1957 an award was made in reference number 1 of 1957 and it was based on the findings in the award made in reference number 18 of 1956.
berar industrial disputes settlement act 1947 hereinafter called the act .
it further gave findings in regard to the disputes between be parties and also as to the persons entitled to the reliefs.
number 144/59.
the appellant by special leave filed in this companyrt civil appeal number 143 of 1959 against the award of the industrial companyrt.
it is number necessary to give the particular .
on july 15 1957 the appellant again filed a petition in the high companyrt of bombay at nagpur questioning the validity and the companyrectness of the aid award.
barlingay s. w. dhabe shanker anand and a. g. ratnaparkhi for respondent number 2 in c. a. number 144/59 and respondent in c. a. number 143 of 1959 .
number 545 of 1958 .
the appellant challenged the correctness of that order by filing a petition under art.
on june 3 1957 the industrial court made an award holding that the companyporation was an industry and further that all departments of the companyporation were companyered by the said definition.
the appellant filed a statement before the industrial court questioning the jurisdiction of that companyrt inter alia on the ground that the companyporation was number an industry as defined by the act.
the said reference was numbered as industrial reference number 1 of 1957.
