Workman status under an industrial dispute reference is part of the merits, so certiorari does not lie for an alleged error.

Where a tribunal is authorised under an industrial dispute reference to decide whether a claimant falls within the class of workmen covered by the reference, that determination forms part of the merits of the dispute and is not a collateral jurisdictional fact. An erroneous finding on workman status, even if alleged, remains a decision within jurisdiction and does not attract certiorari under Article 226. On that basis, the tribunal's refusal to grant relief was not liable to writ interference, and the challenge to its decision failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the determination that the petitioner was not a workman under the industrial dispute reference was a jurisdictional or collateral fact amenable to certiorari under Article 226, and whether the petition challenging the tribunal's refusal to grant relief was maintainable.

Analysis: The reference under the notification read with Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, contemplated adjudication of disputes concerning dismissal, retrenchment, stoppage of increments, and withholding of promotions of workmen. The notification did not itself name the individual workmen, but left specific cases to be cited by employees. In that setting, the tribunal itself had to decide whether the person before it answered the description of a workman. That question was not external to the reference or a mere preliminary condition precedent; it was part of the very dispute entrusted for adjudication. The authorities relied upon by the Court distinguished between a collateral fact, where jurisdiction depends on an antecedent condition, and a fact that forms part of the issue itself. Since the tribunal was empowered to decide the workman-status question, an erroneous decision on that matter would still be a decision within jurisdiction and would not justify certiorari.

Conclusion: The finding that the petitioner was not a workman was within the tribunal's jurisdiction and could not be interfered with by a writ of certiorari.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the tribunal's refusal to adjudicate in the petitioner's favour failed, and the writ petition was not maintainable.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a tribunal is authorised to determine whether a person falls within the class of persons covered by the reference, that determination is part of the merits of the reference and not a collateral jurisdictional fact, so certiorari does not lie merely because the finding is alleged to be wrong.

---