V.Bhargava, J. - (1.) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners, Messrs. E. Sefton and Co., Mirzapur, have prayed for the issue of an order, direction or writ in the nature of certiorari to be issued to opposite parties, the Government of the State of Uttar Pradesh, The Regional Conciliation Officer, Allahabad, and the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India, Lucknow, to produce before this Court the notification dated 27th December 1954, the award dated 19th June 1955 and the decision dated 26th September 1955, and the further prayer is that on production thereof, the notification, the award and the decision referred to above be quashed.
(2.) Two person's Aditya Prasad and Tasad-duq Husain were employed by the petitioner company, having been taken into service on the 29th October 1948 and 26th February 1951, respectively. They were retrenched on the 5th April 1954 and 8th April 1954, respectively. It is alleged that, at the time of this retrenchment, none of them made any protest nor was any demand made by them against the Company. Further, it is alleged that even the opposite party No. 1, The Textile Mill Mazdoor Union, Mirzapur, at that stage made no protest and made no demand in respect of that retrenchment; on the other hand, on their applications dated 6th April 1954 and 10th April 1954, respectively, these two person's were given temporary jobs by the petitioner-Company for the period of. three months as ice clerks in a subsidiary business. This temporary employment of these two persons was terminated on the -13th July 1954 and 17th July 1954, respectively. It is stated that even at this stage there was no protest or demand on their behalf. In the same month of July 1954, the petitioner-Company received a notice from the Regional Conciliation Officer, Allahabad, stating that the latter had received an application from opposite party No. 1, The Textile Mill Mazdoor Union. Mirzapur. with a prayer that a Conciliation Board be constituted in accordance with G. O. No. V-615(u)/XIII-(LL)/51, dated March 15, 1951, to investigate into the matter referred to in that application. It appears that the matter referred to in that application included the retrenchment of theSe two persons Aditya Prasad and Tasadduq Husain in the month of April 1954. In the notice, the petitioner-Company was directed to nominate its representative who was to sit on the Board of Conciliation, and 20th July 1955 was fixed as the date on which the Company was to put in appearance for the investigation of that matter. Besides this matter relating to these two persons, one more matter was referred to the Conciliation Officer by the opposite party No. 1, The Textile Mill Mazdoor Union, Mirzapur, and that raised the question of payment of four months' wages as bonus to the workmen for the year 1952-53. The petitioner-Company contended that there was no dispute between the Company and its workmen at all and on that account refused to submit to the conciliation proceedings. The representative of the Company, who appeared before the Regional Conciliation Officer in response to the notice issued, explained the point of the view of the petitioner-Company to that Officer. Thereupon the Regional Conciliation Officer held that the conciliation proceedings could not succeed and made a report to the Government of the State of Uttar Pradesh, Thereupon, the State Government issued a notification dated the 27th December 1954, which is one of the orders impugned in this writ petition. In this notification, it was stated that the Governor was satisfied that an industrial dispute existed with respect to the matters specified in the notification and that, in the opinion of, the Governor, it was necessary for the maintenance of public order and for maintaining employment to refer the said dispute to the Regional Conciliation Officer, Sri J. N. Srivas-tava, for adjudication. This reference to the Regional Conciliation Officer for adjudication was purported to be made by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Ss. 3, 4 and 8 of, the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and in pursuance of the provisions of Clause 11 of G. O. dated July 14, 1954, which had been issued under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act by the State Government and had been notified in the Official Gazette. The matters referred for adjudication were: "(1) Whether the employers have wrongfully or unjustifiably terminated the services of Aditya Prasad and Tasadduq Husain. If so to what relief; are they entitled? and (2) Whether the employers should be required to pay bonus to their workmen for the year 1952-53. If so, at what rate, and with details?" The Regional Conciliation Officer, who was appointed as the Adjudicator, gave his award on the 19th June 1955. By this award the claim for restoration in service of Aditya Prasad and Tasadduq Husain was rejected, but they were allowed retrenchment compensation. The award also directed payment of bonus to the workmen for the year 1952-53. This award dated 19th June 1955, is the second order impugned in this writ petition. Two appeals were filed against this award before the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India, Lucknow Bench. The two appeals were decided together, The result of; the two decisions of the Labour Appellate Tribunal was that, in place of retrenchment compensation, a direction was issued for reinstatement of Aditya Prasad and Tasadduq Husain. In addition, the payment of bonus to the workmen for the year 1952-53 was also upheld. This appellate decision of the Tribunal dated the 26th September 1955 is the third order impugned in this writ petition. The petition was filed in this Court on the 20th October 1955. The Court directed issue of notices by registered post and also passed an interim order. It appears that subsequently, the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India was abolished and all the records were also transferred to Bombay. This has been brought to the notice of the Court by a subsequent application supported by an affidavit presented on behalf of the opposite party No. 1, The Textile Mill Mazdoor Union, Mirzapur. The fact that the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India, Lucknow Bench, has been abolished and that its record has been transferred to Bombay are not denied on behalf of the petitioners. On these facts a preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the opposite parties that this Court had no jurisdiction now to issue any writ of certiorari tor quashing either the notification or the two orders sought Jo be quashed in the prayer in this petition.
(3.) There is, of course, no doubt, as contended on behalf of the petitioner, that the Regional Conciliation Officer, who gave the award on the 19th June 1955, still continues to exist and exercise jurisdiction within the jurisdiction of this Court, but the award given by him merged in the appellate decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal and that award by itself cannot be quashed without quashing the decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal also. This proposition is supported by a decision of a Full Bench of this Court in Azamt Ullah v. Custodian, Evacuee Property, U. P., Lucknow, 1955 All LJ 521: ( (S) AIR 1955 All 435) (A). Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the decision of the Full Bench cited above could not be applied in the present case on two grounds: The first point urged by learned counsel was that an examination of the provisions of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the Industrial Disputes Appellate Tribunal Act, 1950, would, show that, according to the provisions of the two laws the legal position that comes into existence is that the decision of the Appellate Tribunal merges with the award of the adjudicator or the Industrial Tribunal and has thereafter to be treated as an award of the adjudicator or Industrial Tribunal so that what ceases to exist by merger is not the award of an Industrial Tribunal or adjudicator but the decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal itself. The second point urged by learned counsel was that in any case a part of the record of. the Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, was still within the jurisdiction of this Court and consequently this Court had not lost jurisdiction to quash the decision of that Tribunal or thereafter to quash the award given by the Adjudicator.;