- (1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, by which an award made by the Industrial tribunal, Patiala is sought to be quashed by certiorari, arises in the following circumstances: certain Industrial disputes arose between the petitioner company And its workmen and the same were referred on 11-5-1955 to S. Sant Ram Garg, Industrial Tribunal at Kapurthala, for adjudication by means of a notification dated 11-5-1955 issued by the erstwhile Pepsu State. Later on another notification was issued on 13-8-1955 by which the Industrial Tribunal at kapurthala (later at Patiala) was constituted a Tribunal for the whole of the erstwhile Pepsu State for a period of six months and S. Narindar Singh, retired District Judge, was appointed its sole member. All pending and future industrial disputes were to be adjudicated upon by the aforesaid tribunal. On 3-9-1955 another notification was issued by which the disputes pending between the petitioner and its workmen were directed to be disposed of by the aforesaid Industrial tribunal. These disputes were still pending when the period of six months, for which the industrial Tribunal had been constituted expired. On 20-2-1956 the petitioner made an application to the Tribunal that the period of six months had expired, and the Tribunal was left with no jurisdiction to proceed with the hearing of the reference. Thereupon the Tribunal stayed the proceedings On 29-2-1956 a notification was issued by which the life of the Tribunal was extended for a period of six months from the date of the expiry of the previous period, namely, 13-2-1956. S. Narindar Singh's tenure was also extended for the same period. On 12-3-1956 the Tribunal recorded an order in which it is mentioned that the parties had given their statements to the effect that they did not want de novo trial and that the case might be decided on the material on the record. The Tribunal gave an award on 13-7-1956 which was published in the State Gazette on 4-8-1956. The Petitioner filed a petition in this Court on 30-8-1956 under Article 226 of the Constitution alleging inter alia that the notification extending the life of the Tribunal was void and inoperative as the same could not be done with retrospective effect. It was also alleged that the award was without jurisdiction and void as no fresh reference had been made by the Government to the Tribunal, which should be deemed to have been appointed on 29-2-1956, and that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to decide the disputes referred to the previous Tribunal. There were allegations of illegalities and apparent errors of law and fact which, according to the petitioner, rendered the award in executable and inoperative. The petition was admitted on 31-8-1956. The petitioner also filed an appeal against the award to the labour Appellate Tribunal on the same day, i. e. 31-8-1956, which reached the Appellate tribunal on 4-9-1956. That appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal on 24-12-1956 on the ground that it was not competent, The petitioner was allowed to amend its previous petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution on 21-9-1956, This petition came up before Gosain J. on 26-3-1958, who made an order on that date to the effect that he wanted to have the assistance of another Judge for determination of the case and directed that the case be laid before the Honourable Chief Justice for orders under proviso (b), Clause (xx), Chapter III-B, High Court Rules and Orders, Volume v. The amended petition has thus been placed before us for final disposal.
(2.) IT is contended by Mr. Jagan Nath Kaushal on behalf of the petitioner that on the expiry of six months from 13-8-1955, the Industrial Tribunal of which S. Narindar Singh was the sole member became functus officio, and that His Highness the Rajpramukh was not empowered to extend the life of the Tribunal by a further period of six months from the date on which the six months' period for which the Tribunal was originally constituted expired. It is further contended that if the life of the Tribunal could not be so extended, it would follow that the Industrial Tribunal was constituted afresh with S. Narindar Singh as its sole member on 29-2-1956. As there is no mention of the pending disputes having been referred to this Tribunal, a fresh reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was necessary to clothe the Tribunal with jurisdiction. As no such reference was made, the entire proceedings before the tribunal were coram non judice and the award of the Tribunal dated 13-7-1956 was null and void.
(3.) ON behalf of the respondents a preliminary objection was taken before, and has been strenuously pressed again, namely, that the question of lack of jurisdiction should have been raised by the petitioner before the Tribunal itself, and, as it was never raised there and the petitioner took part in the proceedings, it was not open to the petitioner to agitate that question in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. In support of this objection the respondents have also relied on the fact that the Tribunal was called upon to decide five points and that substantially four or them had been decided in favour of the petitioner and it is only one which was decided against it, and as the petitioner took the chance of having a decision in its favour it should not be permitted now to assail the decision of the Tribunal on the fifth point in the same award. On the other hand it is firmly maintained on behalf of the petitioner that where there is lack oe inherent jurisdiction, no amount of acquiescence, waiver or consent on the part of any party can invest the Tribunal or Court with jurisdiction which (t does not possess.;