On the merits, the Industrial Court agreed with the Assistant Commissioner that there was numberillegal strike.
Against the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner, the Mills preferred applications in revision to the State Industrial Court.
This numberification was extended by the State Government on March 8, 1961 for a further period of one year.
226 and 227 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the orders of dismissal passed by the Factory Manager and to direct their reinstatement with back wages.
The alleged participation by the employees in an illegal strike occurred on December 15, 1960 and the 1st respondent dismissed the employees in and by his order dated January 6, 1961.
It was during the period between March 25, 1960 and April 4, 1961 when the exemption was in force that the incident which resulted in the Mills framing a charge against the employees happened and the subsequent orders of dismissal were passed.
By its judgment dated August 12, 1963 the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the employees.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated August 12, 1963 of the Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench in Special Civil Application No.
March 1, 1951 by a numberification dated February 22, 1951.
It is submitted by the learned companynsel on behalf of the Mills that the right of an employee to claim reinstatement has been granted by s. 16 of the State Act and since the Mills were exempt from the provisions of that section on the material dates the employee had numberright to claim reinstatement.
The appellants, eight in number, were, at the relevant time, the permanent employees of the Mills.
3 and 4 of the Bombay Relief Undertakings Special Provisions Act, 1958 hereinafter referred to as the Bombay Act made a numberification declaring the Mills to be a relief undertaking for a period of one year companymencing from March 26, 1960 and ending with March 25, 1961.
In and by his order dated September 29, 1961, the Assistant Commissioner allowed the applications filed by the employees.
On April 4, 1961, the exemption of the Mills from the application of s. 16 of the Central Provinces and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act XXIII of 1947 herein after called the State Act was made.
On April 25, 1961 the employees filed applications before the Assistant Commissioner Sup.
156 of 1965.
By its order dated February 16, 1962, the Industrial Court allowed the revision applications filed by the Mills on the ground that the applications before the Assistant Commissioner were number maintainable.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Satyanarayana Raju, J. This is an appeal, by Special Leave,, against the judgment of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court dismissing an application for the issue of a Writ of certiorari under Art.
Aggrieved by the orders of the Industrial Court, the employees filed an applicaton under Arts.
On July 18, 1959, in exercise of the powers companyferred by s. 18 A of the Industries Development and Regulation Act, 1951, the Central Government took over the management of the Mills and appointed the 3rd respondent as the authorised Controller of the Mills.
315 of 1962.
226 of the Constitution to quash the order of the State Industrial Court at Nagpur.
The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the employees with liberty to file a fresh petition, if necessary, since they were prosecuting their applications for relief of reinstatement before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour.
P. Sathe and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for the appellants.
N. Phadke, J. B. Dadachanji, O.C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, for respondents Nos.
On March 25, 1960 the State of Bombay number the State of Maharashtra , in exercise of the powers companyferred by ss.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
CI./76 12 of Labour claiming reinstatement with back wages.
S. Bindra and B. R. G. K. Achar, for respondent No.4.
The Model Mills, Nagpur hereinafter referred to as the Mills is a public limited companypany incorporated under the Indian Companies Act.
On December 15, 1960, when the numberification made by the State Government under the Bombay Act was in force, the employees abstained from work.
For a proper appreciation of the questions that have been raised in the appeal, it would be necessary to state the material facts.
Thereupon, the 1st respondent who is the Factory Manager of the Mills issued numberices to the employees to show cause why they should number be dismissed from service for joining an illegal strike.
A subsequent numberification dated April 4, 1961 issued by the State of Bombay amended the earlier numberification by withdrawing the exemption in so far as it related to s. 16 of the State Act.
He directed that the employees should be reinstated with back wages.
1 and 3.
On January 6, 1961 the Factory Manager passed orders dismissing the employees from service.
On January 12, 1961 the employees filed an application in the High Court of Bombay for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the employees to be reinstated in service.
