- (1.) The Appellant is a union of the workmen of the Indian Aluminium Co., Ltd., the Respondent in this appeal. The appeal concerns certain industrial disputes. The question raised is whether the order of reference of these disputes under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was competent. It appears that on 28 March 1951, the Government of the State of Travancore -Cochin which later became the State of Kerala, made under the Act two orders of reference of certain industrial disputes between he company and its workmen. The first order of reference concerned disputes between the company and its workmen, represented by a union called the factory staff association and the second concerned disputes between the company and its workmen represented by the Appellant union. After various proceedings these disputes were settled and awards by the industrial Tribunal concerned were made on 19th January 1952 in terms of settlements arrived at. In the case in which the stall" association was concerned, the dispute referred included two points namely: (1) Was the refusal to promote pot room supervisor P.C. Markose as foreman unjust and (2) Does the transfer of M.P. Mathai and C.A. Augustine from the pot room department to the chemical laboratory amount to a lateral on of the conditions of service to the prejudice of pot room supervisors The settlement with regard to the first of these disputes was in these terms : The principle that supervisors and other employees in the company above their grade are not workmen within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947 is accepted and accordingly, the Indian Aluminium factory staff association undertakes forthwith to exclude all such employees from their membership and inform the fact to the employers in writing. On receipt of the same, the employers shall promote P.C. Markose as a foreman effective from 1st October 1951 on a foreman's initial basic salary plus rupees twenty five. The dispute concerning Mathai and Augustine was given up by the settlement.
(2.) In the second reference in which the Appellant union was involved, two of the terms agreed to were as follows: (1) The principle that supervisors and other employees in the company above their grade are not workmen within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is accepted and accordingly the Aluminium Factory workers' union undertakes to exclude all such employees from their membership. (2) The employers agree to make an ex gratia payment of rupees twenty each to all workers whose basic wage is rupees one hundred and fifty per month or less on 31st December, 1051. It is quite obvious that the two references were settled together by one scheme of agreement, and formed one connected whole, the settlement in each case being a consideration for the other. Sometime after the aforesaid awards, the said Mathai was discharged and thereupon the Appellant union raised an industrial dispute concerning it. On 14th July 1954, the Government of Travancore -Cochin made an order under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referring for adjudication the question whether the discharge of Mathai was justifiable and if not, to what relief he was entitled, to the Industrial Tribunal, Ernakulam.
(3.) When the matter came up for hearing before the Tribunal, the company took three preliminary objections against the reference, namely: (a) Mathai was not a workman and hence the reference was not competent; (b) in view of the aforesaid awards, dated 19th January 1952, the workmen were precluded from contending that Mathai was a workman; and (c) that in any view of the matter there can be no reference or adjudication except after the termination of the aforesaid earlier awards under Section 19(6) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Tribunal decided these preliminary objections against the company and proposed to proceed with the reference. The company then moved the High Court of Kerala under Article 226 of the Constitution for an order quashing the reference on the same grounds.;