WORKERS AND STAFF EMPLOYED UNDER THE EXPRESS Vs. MANAGEMENT OF THE EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS PR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are connected Letters Patent Appeals from the order of Balakvishna Aiyar, J. in W. P. Nos. 443 and 450 of 1959 before him, in both of which the petitioner was the management of the Express Newspapers (Private) Ltd. In W. A. No. 73 of 1959, the appellants are the workers and Staff of the Express Newspapers (Private) Ltd. represented by the secretary of Employees' Union and another. In W. A. No. 85 of 1959, the appellant is the management of the Express Newspapers (Private) Ltd. In W. P. No. , 450 of 1959, the learned Judge directed issue of a writ of prohibition, barring the industrial tribunal from proceeding into the first part of the first question and the first part of the second question referred to it by Government, in a reference under Section 10 (1) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act. In W. P. No. 443 of 1959, which related to an order of the Government simultaneously issued under Section 10 (3) of the Act, the learned Judge held that no orders were necessary beyond a certain clarification, which he accordingly made.

(2.) THE background of facts in relation to which, these references by Government were issued, has been dealt with in some detail in the order of the learned Judge. For the purposes of these appeals, it will be sufficient if the broader landmarks of the events are 'indicated. The Express Newspapers (Private) Ltd. Madras is a private proprietary business which prints and publishes various periodicals and dailies. They include the Indian Express, Andhra Prabha and the Andhra Prabha Illustrated Weekly. For more than two years past, there have been disputes and legal proceedings between the management and their employees. In March 1957, a dispute was raised by the employees on certain points, and the Government of Madras made a reference to the Industrial Tribunal which passed an award in November 1957, upon the four questions referred to it for adjudication. Admittedly, the management took up this matter in appeal to the Supreme Court, and obtained a stay in respect of portions of this award.

(3.) IN March 1938, the management notified that they intended to retrench 59 workers, and an industrial dispute was raised about this. On 20th May 1958, the Government referred the question for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Madras. Upon the overruling of certain preliminary objections, the management came up to this court with W. P. No. 810 of 1958 this was, however, finally withdrawn on 5th December 1958. On 12th October 1958, the Employees Union made certain complaints to Government, as a result of which the Minister for Home held discussions in the presence of both parties, which were, however, unfruitful. On 31st October 1958, the management for the first time, intimated an intention to close down their publications at Madras, and notified the employees that all workmen would be paid compensation according to law. The Minister for Home again intervened, and this time a settlement was effected between the parties, embodied in a memorandum drawn up on 6th November 1958 under Section 12 (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act. This settlement was to subsist for a period of 2 1/2 years and the case of the employees is that Mr. R. N. Goenka, the chairman of the Express Newspapers Ltd. , then agreed in the presence of the Minister, Sri M Baktavat-salam, and the Labour Commissioner, Sri V. Balasundaram, that the paper, Andhra Prabha, will not be shifted for publication to Vijayawadn during this period and that its workmen will hence be continued to he employed as heretofore at Madras. Admittedly, this was verbal assurance, and it was not included as a term of the memorandum. But the point made by the learned counsel for the worker's (Mr. Mohan Kumaramangalam) is that the workers were making protests regarding the contemplated sale of Andhra Prabha publication rights and its consequent transfer to Vijayawada, from a very early stage, on the basis of this alleged assurance, while the disclaimer or denial in respect of it by Sri R. N. Goenka came at a late stage of the proceedings before the two parties,