Broad construction of industrial dispute law treated domestic workers as workmen, while certiorari failed after the tribunal ceased to exist.

Certiorari under Article 226 was held unavailable where the tribunal had ceased to exist and the relevant record was no longer within the custody or control of any authority amenable to writ jurisdiction, so the award and appellate order could not be quashed. Applying a broad, purposive construction of "industry", "industrial dispute" and "workman" under the Industrial Disputes Act, employees engaged for manual work in connection with the employer's business were treated as workmen even though they worked at officers' residences. Their wage dispute was therefore an industrial dispute, the adjudicator and tribunal had jurisdiction, and the impugned order was not void.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court could grant certiorari to quash the award and appellate order when the tribunal had ceased to exist and its record was outside the territorial control of the Court. (ii) Whether the employees concerned were workmen employed in an industry so that the wage dispute was an industrial dispute, with the result that the adjudicator and tribunal had jurisdiction and the impugned order was not void.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court could grant certiorari to quash the award and appellate order when the tribunal had ceased to exist and its record was outside the territorial control of the Court.

Analysis: Certiorari under Article 226 was unavailable because the tribunal had become extinct and the relevant record was no longer within the control or custody of any authority amenable to the Court's writ jurisdiction. In those circumstances, the Court could not quash the tribunal's order, and the award of the adjudicator, having merged in the appellate order, also could not be quashed by certiorari.

Conclusion: The prayer for certiorari failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the employees concerned were workmen employed in an industry so that the wage dispute was an industrial dispute, with the result that the adjudicator and tribunal had jurisdiction and the impugned order was not void.

Analysis: The definitions of "industry", "industrial dispute" and "workman" in the Industrial Disputes Act were applied on a broad and purposive construction. The location of the employees' work, namely at officers' residences rather than inside the factory, was held to be immaterial. Since they were employed by the appellant for manual work for hire or reward in reference to its business, they were workmen. Their wage dispute therefore related to the terms of employment and constituted an industrial dispute. The adjudicator and tribunal consequently had jurisdiction, and the order could not be treated as null and void so as to justify mandamus.

Conclusion: The employees were workmen, the dispute was an industrial dispute, and the impugned order was valid.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed in full, and the order dismissing the writ petition was affirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: For purposes of the Industrial Disputes Act, employment "in an industry" is to be construed broadly as employment in reference to the business or undertaking, and not as confined to work performed within the factory premises; accordingly, employees engaged for manual domestic service in connection with the employer's business are workmen and their wage dispute is an industrial dispute.

---