Ramachandra Ayyar, C.J. - (1.) MUTHIAH Pillai who was employer by the South India Saiva Siddhanta Works Publishing Society at Tirunelveli, was dismissed from service on 10 December, 1959 on the ground that he was responsible for an article that appeared in an issue of "Indunesan" dated 24 October, 1958 making certain allegations of malpractices committed by the directors of the society. No enquiry was held by the management to find out whether the employee was guilty of the conduct attributed to him and consequently there was no opportunity for the latter to show that the charge or suspicion against him was ill-founded.
(2.) THE Madras Press Labour Union of which Muthiah Pillai was a member, took up his cause and it raised an industrial dispute. Conciliation proceedings, which were initiated in consequence thereof, proved ineffective. THE labour officer who was entrusted with the conciliation work, while reporting his failure, intimated to the Government that the management was neither willing to reinstate the employee nor terminate his services by giving one month's notice, on the footing that the previous dismissal was invalid. THE Government, on a consideration of the report, found that a reference of the dispute to the labour court was not called for. By its order dated 14 September 1959 the Government stated : "On a careful examination of the case the Government find that the termination of services of K. P. Muthiah Pillai is justified. THE union may, therefore, advise the worker to accept the sum of Rs. 1, 034.47 offered by the management towards notice pay and compensation. THEre is no case for adjudication." The labour union at first applied to this Court for the issue of a writ of certiorari, evidently on a misapprehension as to the nature of the order of the Government. But later it converted the application into one for the issue of a writ of mandamus to the Government directing it to refer the dispute regarding the dismissal of Muthiah Pillai for adjudication by the labour court. Thus, the dispute, though it originated in the grievance of a single workman, had, by reason of the espousal of his cause by the union, gained support from the other employees of the same establishment who were members of that union. Veeraswami, J., before whom the application for the issue of writ came up for hearing, held that the order of the Government was bad in two respects, namely :(1) that it amounted to an adjudication of the dispute on its merits, which the Government had no jurisdiction to do, and (2) that as no reasons had been given by the Government for its conclusion, its order contravened S.12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Conformably to the view thus expressed, a writ mandamus was issued directing the Government to consider afresh whether a reference of the dispute to the appropriate authority under the Act is called for.
(3.) THE judgment in the case is reported as Workmen of South India Saiva Siddhanta Works Publishing Society v. Government of Madras THE State Government have now appealed against the judgment. Before taking up the substantial question raised in the appeal, we shall have first to deal with an objection raised by the learned Advocate-General appearing for the Government-an objection which does not appear to have been taken before the learned Judge - regarding the propriety of issuing a writ of mandamus when the employer has not been made a party to the proceedings before this Court. THEre is a misapprehension under lying the objection. THE direction issued by the learned Judge is one that requires the Government to do its duty, as the purported order of the Government in his view is non est in law.;