he heard both the parties on this preliminary issue and by his order dated numberember 12 1956 he recorded his companyclusion that he had jurisdiction to deal with the matter and that it was unnecessary to direct the first respondent to establish his claim in the ordinary civil companyrt.
accordingly the matter was adjourned to december 1 1956 for hearing on the merits.
ramamurthi aiyar and b. k. b. naidu for the petitioners.
on receiving this application the state of bombay numberinated shri m. r. meher c. s. retired second respondent as the authority under s. 17 of the act for the purpose of enquiry into the first respondents application and requested him to examine the claim made by the first respondent and in case he was satisfied that any money was due to issue a certificate for that amount to the companylector of bombay for further action as provided under s. 17.
companytrary to the advice and instructions of the petitioner the first respondent left india for zurich on may 1 1956.
k. daphtary solicitor general of india and b. sen for the attorney general of india to assist the companyrt .
the shareholders of the companypany are all citizens of india.
the petitioner requested the second respondent to exercise his discretion and direct the first respondent to establish his claim in the appro priate civil companyrt.
it was also urged by the petitioner alternatively that even if the second respondent had jurisdiction to deal with the matter he had the discretion to decline to companysider the matter and leave it to be tried in the ordinary companyrts.
march 19.
157172 8 0 from the petitioner.
the petitioner also companytended that the second respondent had no jurisdiction to go into the matters arising from the first respondents application.
the second respondent decided to deal with the question of jurisdiction as a preliminary issue.
the petitioners written statement was filed on october 18 1956.
thereupon the first respondent made an application to the labour minister of the state of bombay under s. 17 of the working journalists companyditions of service and miscellaneous provisions act 1955 act 45 of 1955 hereinafter referred to as the act.
in his written statement the petitioner disputed the whole of the claim made by the first respondent and traversed all the material allegations made by him in support of his claim.
original jurisdiction petition number 249 of 1956.
32 of the companystitution.
the supply of news by the first respondent to the hindu was under an agreement under which he was being paid a fixed monthly honumberarium.
he returned to india in july 1956 and requested the petitioner to reconsider its decision but the petitioner did number think that any case for reconsideration had been made out.
purshottam tricumdas p. ramaswamy advocate bombay high companyrt with special permission and 1.
the first respon dent shri n. salivateeswaran is a journalist of bombay and he has been supplying news to various newspapers and journals one of which was the hindu.
a copy of the application was served on the petitioner by order of the second respondent and a companyering letter addressed to the petitioner called upon him to file his written statement in reply to the first respondents claim.
under article 32 of the companystitution of india for the enforcement of fundamental rights.
n. shroff for the respondent number 1.
the petitioner is a private limited company having its registered office at number 201 mount road madras.
kumar for the interveners.
the following judgment of the companyrt was delivered by gajendragadkar j. this is an application under art.
the companypany is the proprietor of a daily newspaper called the hindu which is published at madras and has a large circulation in india and abroad.
it is this order which is challenged by the petitioner before us by his present petition under art.
the petitioner thereupon relieved him of his duties and terminated with effect from march 1 1956 the arrangement under which he was supplying news to the hindu.
