Rajagopalan, J. - (1.) THE management of the Madura Mills Co. Ltd., Madurai, applied under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari to set aside the order of the Labour Appellate Tribunal at Madras dated 18th June, 1955.
(2.) INDUSTRIAL disputes between the management and the workers of Madura Mills were referred to the Industrial Tribunal at Madurai for adjudication. One set of disputes was numbered as 23 of 1954. Those disputes were referred on 14th April, 1954. The Industrial Tribunal gave its award, and on publication in the gazette it became enforceable from 25th September, 1954. The other set of disputes numbered as 38 of 1954 was referred on 3rd July, 1954, and the award of the Tribunal became enforceable on 22nd October, 1954. During the pendency of those proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal, Madurai, but independent of them petitions were presented to the Industrial Tribunal under Sections 33 and 33 -A of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act XIV of 1947). Muthiah was one of the workmen in the Mills. It was common ground his permanent ticket of employment was that of a doffer in the spinning department of the Mills. It was equally common ground that from about 1945 due to an injury to one of his arms, the management assigned him the lighter work of bobbin picking in the same department. In 1954 the management effected certain improvements in the mechanical appliances for conveyance of bobbins to the ring frame section in the spinning department and the management found the need to reduce the number of workmen engaged in bobbin picking. The management directed 20 of the workmen hitherto employed in bobbin picking to work as doffers. Muthiah was one of them. He alone among the 20 protested against the change in work. He refused to carry out the order of the management. Industrial Disputes Nos. 23 of 1954 and 38 of 1954 were then pending adjudication before the Industrial Tribunal. Muthiah complained to the Industrial Tribunal under Section 33 -A of the Industrial Disputes Act, that the management had contravened the provisions of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act by changing the conditions of service in the Mills applicable to him. The management in its turn presented a petition to the Industrial Tribunal under Section 33(b) of the industrial Disputes Act for permission to dismiss Muthiah for disobedience of the lawful orders issued by the management.
(3.) THE two petitions were heard together by the Industrial Tribunal and they were disposed of on 18th December, 1954. By then, the enquiry into the main industrial disputes Nos. 23 of 1954 and 38 of 1954 had terminated, and even the award in I.D. No. 38 of 1954 had become enforceable on 22nd October, 1954. The petitions under Sections 33 and 33 -A of the Industrial Disputes Act, it should be remembered, had been filed even during, the pendency of the enquiry into the Industrial Disputes Nos. 23 and 38 of 1954. On 18th December, 1954, the Industrial Tribunal dismissed the application presented by Muthiah. It allowed the application presented by the management under Section 33(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act and granted the management permission to dismiss Muthiah.;