APPEAL COURT.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 17192, 8 November 1923, Page 8

APPEAL COURT.

WATERSIDERS’ CASE. Pan Press Association. WELLINGTON, November 8. In tho waterside workers’ case, the Court hail also to consider the question as to whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to ileal with the matter by way of prohibition or certiorari. Mr Justice Saimoml, who delivered the Court’s judgment, said that an award of tho Arbitration Court was examinable in the Supreme Court, and a writ of prohibition could be issued from tho latter to the Arbitration Court. In the present case, however, no proceedings were being taken to enforce the award, and therefore there was nothing to prohibit. Prohibition to restrain an ultra vires award must wait until an attempt was made to enforce it. In his opinion, there was nothing pending in the Arbitration Court which could be made the subject of prohibition. If the appellant was entitled to any relief, it was by way of certiorari, and, in his opinion, tho latter was available in the present case, if a good case was made out on merits. Dealing with the question of merit, he said that the. clause of the award with reference to standing by was objected to on tho ground that it did not deal with an industrial matter, and compelled tho men men to accept employment. In his opinion, it did not compel them to accept or return to work, lt merely regulated the terms of their employment after they had entered into a contract of service.