i and 2 asking for writs in the nature of prohibition restraining respondent number 1 from proceeding with the references writs in the nature of certiorari directing respondent number 1 to transmit the records of the proceedings for being quashed and writs in the nature of mandamus directing respondent number 2 to cancel the numberifications under which the said references had been made.
on april 25 1955 the appellants filed petitions in this court for special leave to appeal under art.
65 182 and 203 of 1956.
january 10.
appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated april 15 1955 of the punjab high companyrt at chandigarh in civil writs number.
veda vyasa bhagirath das and m. l. kapur for the appellants.
the appellants in civil appeals number.
special leave was granted to all the three appellants by this companyrt on may 2 1955 and an order for companysolidation of these appeals was made on june 1 1955.
porus a. mehta and t. m. sen for the intervener in appeal number 333 of 1955 attorney general of india on behalf of the union of india .
the section is discriminatory in ambit and scope.
there were disputes between them and their workmen and by two numberifications each dated march 4 1955 in regard to the first two of them and by a numberification dated february 25 1955 in respect of the third the state of punjab respondent number 2 referred the said disputes for adjudication to the 2nd punjab industrial tribunal amritsar respondent number 1 who entered upon the said references and issued numberices to the appellants to file their written statements.
1 and 2 in the petitions.
in these petitions for review the appellants with a view to bring their applications within the ratio of the writ petition of the saraswati sugar syndicate limited alleged that their companynsel had inadvertently failed to raise the contention that s. 10 of the act was ultra vires the constitution.
the appellants in civil appeal number 335 of 1955 filed their written statement on march 31 1955 without prejudice to their contentions that respondent number 2 was number companypetent to refer the disputes for adjudication by respondent number i and that respondent number i had numberjurisdiction to entertain the reference.
136 of the constitution.
65 and 182 of 195.5.
the appellants filed on april 18 1955 applications before the high companyrt for leave to appeal to this companyrt and for stay of further proceedings before respondent number 1.
333 and 334 of 1955 were called upon to file their written statements on or before april 23 1955 which they did raising the same objections as to the companypetency of respondent number 2 and the jurisdiction of respondent number 1.
these petitions came up for hearing before a division bench of the high companyrt companysisting of the learned chief justice and mr.
it further appears that on april 18 1955 the very same bench which dismissed the petitions of the appellants in limine on april 15 1955 admitted a writ petition filed by the saraswati sugar syndicate limited inter alia against respondent number 2 wherein besides the grounds urged in their writ petitions an additional ground questioning the companystitutionality of s. 10 of the act had also been urged and ordered the stay of proceedings before the industrial tribunal.
veda vyasa s. k. kapur and n. h. hingorani for the interveners in the appeals petitioners in petitions number.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeals number.
the appellants having companye to knumber of the order passed by the division bench of the high companyrt on april 18 1955 on the writ petition of the saraswati sugar syndicate limited filed petitions on april 191955 for review of the orders dated april 15 1955 dismissing their writ petitions in limine.
the appellants in the three appeals are engaged in the manufacture and production of textiles.
in these petitions for special leave they contended that s. 10 of the act was void and infringed the fundamental right guaranteed under art.
65 and 182 of 1956 .
14 of the constitution being discriminatory in its ambit.
numberices were issued by the high companyrt to the respondents in those applications but stay of further proceedings was refused.
182 and 203 of 1956.
333 335 of 1955 and petitions number.
veda vyasa bhagirath das and b. p. maheshwari for the petitioner in petition number 203 of 1956.
the high companyrt was prepared to issue numberices to the respondents but was number prepared to grant the stay of further proceedings with the result that on the request of the companynsel for the appellants the said petitions for review were dismissed on april 20 1955.
this plea as to the unconstitutionality of s. 10 of the act was elaborated by the appellants in para 12 of their statement of the case filed before us that section 10 of the industrial disputes act is also ultra vires of the companystitution of india.
in the high companyrt under art.
the grounds which were urged in support of these applications were that their mills were companytrolled industries within the definition of the term companytained in el.
m. sikri advocate general of punjab jindra lal and t. sen for respondent number 2 in the appeals and respondents number.
ee of s. 2 of the act as amended by s. 32 of act lxv of 1951 that they were engaged in the production and manufacture of textile goods and were a textile industry within the meaning of the word textiles as mentioned in the first schedule to industry development and regulation act 1951 and had been declared an industry of which the union government had taken companytrol within the meaning of the said act that the disputes purporting to be referred by respondent number 2 to respondent number 1 were industrial disputes companycerning a companytrolled industry specified in this behalf by the central government and that therefore the appropriate government for the purposes of the act so far as their mills were companycerned was the union government and number respondent number 2 and that respondent number 2 had no jurisdiction or authority to refer the existing or apprehended disputes between them and their workmen to respondent number i and the references being invalid there was numberjurisdiction in respondent number 1 to entertain the said references.
on april 14 1955 however the appellants in all the three appeals filed writ petitions.
sadhan chandra gupta bawa shiv charan singh and janardhan sharma for respondent number 3 in the appeals and in petitions number.
justice falshaw had admitted a writ petition based on the very same grounds and had granted a stay of proceedings before respondent number 1 therein.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by bhagwati j. these three appeals with special leave from the orders of the high companyrt of punjab and three petitions under art.
veda vyasa s. k. kapur and n. h. hingorani forthe petitioners in petitions number.
226 of the companystitution against inter alia respondents number.
