B.Mukerji, J. - (1.) This is a special appeal Against the decision of a learned single Judge in this Court made on the hearing of a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash two orders alleged to have been passed by the State of Uttar Pradesh in the year 1959. In the petition the relevant prayer was put in thus: To quash the order, dated 10 September 1969 (annexure 8), and order, dated 9 September 1959 (annexure 10), by a writ of certiorari or by any other suitable writ, order or direction.
(2.) The petitioner also prayed for the issue of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to withdraw the demand of rupees one lakh and odd which, according to the prayer, included a demand of Rs. 50,654-9-6 Issued against the petitioner, and release the property of the petitioner from attachment, and farther not to proceed with the recovery proceedings.
(3.) The petitioner was a private limited concern doing business at the time when the proceedings, out of which this appeal has arisen, arose under the caption "Kays Construction Company (Private), Ltd. "It appears that prior to the company becoming a private limited liability concern it was a private concern of a gentleman named Sri H.M. Khosla. It appears that Sri Khosla, for some reason, found it unprofitable or found it to his dislike to continue the business as his individual business and, therefore, he stopped doing business for a while and thereafter came into the same business under the caption Kays Construction Company (Private), Ltd. The workmen who were employed by Sri Khosla in his private concern ceased to be utilized by him when he decided to close the business. On the reconstitution of the business as Kays Construction Company (Private), Ltd., part of the labour that was employed by Sri Khosla in his erstwhile construction company got re-employment in the new private limited concern, but some of the labour did not find such employment. There was also a difference even in the case of that labour which found re-employment in the new company, namely, that the labour was not re-employed on the same terms and conditions on which they had been working when the concern was a purely private concern of Sri Khosla. The aforementioned change in the benefits and employment of the labour brought about an industrial dispute and the culmination of that industrial dispute was by an award given by the Allahabad Industrial Tribunal (Sugar) on 31 January 1958, By the award the rights of the labour in respect of their claims against the company, which fell for determination on the labour dispute having been raised, were decided and one of the things which was decided by the tribunal was in respect of the reinstatement of the discharged labour and the wages to which such labour was entitled on their reinstatement.;