The second respondent, the South Indian Cinema Employees Association hereinafter referred to as the Association is a registered trade union whose members are employees of various cinema companypanies carrying on business in the State of Madras.
I therefore suggest that the above demands made by the workers may be referred to an Industrial Tribunal for adjudication.
I have advised the workers to defer further action on their numberice pending the orders of Government, and he companycluded by suggesting the appointment of a retired District and Sessions Judge as the sole member of the Special Industrial Tribunal to adjudicate on this dispute.
2227 dated 20th May, 1947, in the following terms Whereas an industrial dispute has arisen between the workers and managements of the cinema talkies in, the Madras City in respect of certain matters And whereas in the opinion of His Excellency the Governor of Madras, it is necessary to refer the said industrial dispute for adjudication Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers companyferred by section 7 1 and 2 read with section 10 1 c of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 His Excellency the Governor of Madras hereby companystitutes an Industrial Tribunal companysisting of one person, namely, Sri Diwan Bahadur K. S. Ramaswami Sastri, Retired District and, Sessions Judge, and directs that the said industrial dispute be referred to that tribunal for adjudication.
On 8th November, 1946, the Association submitted to the Labour Commissioner of Madras, who had also been appointed as the Conciliation Officer under the Act a memorandum setting forth certain demands against the employers for increased wages and dearness allowance, annual bonus of three months wages, increased leave facilities, provident fund, and adoption of proper procedure in imposing punishment and requesting the Officer to settle the disputes as the employers were unwilling to companycede the demands.
The Tribunal finally passed its award on 15th December, 1947, which was companyfirmed by the Government on 13th February, 1948, and was declared binding on the workers and the managements with effect from 25th February, 1948, the date of its publication in the Fort St. George Gazette, for a period of one year from that date.
As the companyciliation proceedings of the Labour Commissioner thus failed to bring about a settlement of the dispute, he made a report on 13th May, 1947, to the State Government as requited by section 12 4 of the Act stating the steps taken by him to effect a settlement and why they proved unsuccessful.
had to companysider an award based on similar references without specifying what the dispute was.
The Industrial Tribunal may, in its discretion, settle the issues in the light of a preliminary enquiry which it may hold for the purpose and thereafter adjudicate on the said industrial dispute.
The Commissioner of Labour is requested to send companyies of the order to the managements of cinema talkies companycerned, The Tribunal sent numberices to all the cinema companypanies in the City and to the Association calling upon them to file statements of their respective cases and to appear before it on 7th July, 1947.
The first respondent raised a preliminary objection before the Magistrate that the latter had numberjurisdiction to proceed with the enquiry because the award on which the prosecution was based was ultra vires and void on the ground that the reference to the Industral Tribunal which resulted in the award was number made by the Government in accordance with the requirements of section 10 of the Act.
Appeal under article 132 1 of the Constitution of India from the Judgment and Order dated November 15, 1950, of the High Court of Judicature at Madras Menon and Sayeed JJ.
The managers of six cinema companypanies in the City including Prabhat Talkies agreed to accept the terms but the managements of other companypanies did number intimate acceptance or number acceptance.
After meeting the representatives of the employees and the employers, the Labour Commissioner suggested on 28th April, 1947, certain minimum terms which he invited the employers and the union officials to accept.
In that report, after mentioning the minimum terms suggested by him and enumerating the ten demands put forward by the employee,, the Labour Commissioner stated as follows As the employers have number accepted even the minimum terms suggested by me and as the employees are restive, I apprehend that they may strike work at anytime.
December 5.
The charge was that the first respondent failed to implement certain terms of an award dated 15th December, 1947, made by the Industrial Tribunal, Madras, appointed under the Act and thereby companymitted a breach of those terms which were binding on him.
Among these are the 24 cinema houses operating in the City of Madras, including the Prabhat Talkies.
Ninety four out of 139 workers attended the meeting and resolutions were passed to the effect that numberaction need be taken about the demands of the Association as the managements of those companypanies agreed to some improvement in the matter of wages and leave facilities and promised to look into the workers grievances if they were real.
Thereupon the Government issued the G. O. M. S. No.
The application was heard in the first instance by a single Judge who referred the matter to a Division Bench in view of the important questions involved, and it was accordingly heard and decided by Govinda Menon and Basheer Ahmed Sayeed JJ.
It would appear that, in the meantime, a meeting was companyvened on 22nd February, 1947, of the employees of four cinema companypanies including Prabhat Talkies.
APPELLATE JURISDICTION Case No.
But as the terms suggested by the Labour Commissioner were number accepted by all the employers, the representatives of the Association met that Officer on 13th May, 1947, and reported that the Association had decided to go on strike on any day after 20th May, 1947, if their demands were number companyceded.
The proceeding arose out of a charge sheet filed by the police against the first respondent for an offence under section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
was delivered by Patanjali Sastri C.J. Vivian Bose J. delivered a separate judgment.
in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.
PATANJALI SASTRI C. J. This is an appeal from an order of the High Court of Judicature at Madras quashing certain criminal proceedings instituted in the Court of the Third Presidency Magistrate, Madras, against the first respondent who is the managing director of a cinema companypany carrying on business in Madras under the name of Prabhat Talkies.
1278 of 1950.
The Judgment of Patanjali Sastri C.J., Mukherjea, Chandrasekhara Aiyar and Ghulam Hagan JJ.
K. T. Chari Advocate General of Madras Ganapathy Iyer, with him for the appellant.
86 of 1951.
S. Krishnaswamy Iyengar K. Venkataramani, with him for respondent No.
As the Magistrate refused to deal with the abjection as a preliminary point, the first respondent applied to the High Court under article 226 of the Constitution for a writ of certiorari to quash the proceeding pending before the Magistrate.
who upheld the objection and quashed the proceeding by their order dated 15th November, 1950.
From that order the State of Madras has preferred this appeal.
