Minerva Mills LTD. , Bangalore vs Workers of the Minerva Mills

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1953 Supreme(SC) 89

SUPREME COURT INDIA
8th October 1953.
MAHAJAN, B.K. MUKHERJEA AND JAGANNADHA DAS, JJ.
Minerva Mills Ltd., Bangalore Appellants
Versus
Workers of the Minerva Mills and another, Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 140 to 143; 156, and 157 of 1953.
Advocates appeared
Shri C. K. Dapntary. Solicitor-General for India, (Shri J. B. Dedachanji, Advocate, with him), instructed by Shri Anant Govind Ratnaparkhi, Agent, for Appellants (in all the appeals); Shri S. Mohankumar Mangalam, Advocate, instructed by Shri S. Subramanian. Agent and Shri H. J. Umrigar, Advocate, instructed by Shri S. Subramanian. Agent, for Respondents (in Nos. 140 to 143 and 156 and 157 of 1953 respectively.).

Advocates:
ANANT GOVIND RATNAPARKHI, C.K.DAFTARY, H.J.Umrigar, J.B.DADACHAN, S.MOHAN KUMARA MANGALAM, S.SIVA SUBRAMANIAM, S.Subramania Iyer

Headnote:Sections 7 and 8-Constitution of Tribunal for limited period. Held : (1) Under the provisions of section 7, the appropriate Government has ample power of constituting a tribunal for a limited time, intending thereby that its life would automatically come to an end on the expiry of that time. The contention that the Government would not withdraw the dispute referred to the first tribunal so long as the members of the first tribunal were available and could not hand it ever to the second tribunal cannot also be sustained.
(2) When the life of the first tribunal automatically came to an end by efflux of time, no question of vacancy in the office really arose and it was not a case falling under sub-.clause (2) of S. 8 but the situation that arose fell within the ambit of S. 7.
(3) "This notification does not say that this new tribunal cannot hear the dispute de novo. If any prejudice is caused to the employers, it will be open to the newly constituted tribunal to begin the hearing of the disputes from the very first stage but as it is clear that all that happened to these disputes when they were pending before the first tribunal was that only issues were framed, and if any party has any objection to those issues," it will be open to the newly constituted tribunal to reframe those issues, (Per Mahajan J.)

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:

The appropriate government has the authority to constitute one or more industrial tribunals for a limited period, with the intention that the tribunal's existence ends automatically upon expiry of that period (!) (!) .
The power to appoint tribunals for a limited duration is explicitly supported by the provisions of the relevant sections of the Industrial Disputes Act, which do not restrict or limit the government's discretion in this regard (!) (!) .
The appointment of a tribunal for a specified period does not imply that the tribunal's existence is indefinite or that the government cannot withdraw or reassign disputes during or after that period (!) (!) .
When a tribunal's designated period expires, its existence ceases automatically, and there is no obligation to keep the same tribunal in place beyond that period (!) .
The provisions of the Act do not prohibit the government from reconstituting a tribunal or appointing a new tribunal to hear unresolved disputes, even if those disputes were initially referred to a previous tribunal (!) (!) .
The language of the notification appointing the second tribunal, despite its confusing wording, is interpreted as valid under the relevant sections, and the second tribunal was properly constituted (!) .
The second tribunal was authorized to hear and dispose of disputes left unresolved by the first tribunal, and it was within its jurisdiction to proceed from the stage at which the first tribunal had left off, or to reframe issues if necessary (!) .
The legal framework supports the view that tribunals can be appointed for limited periods, and their existence is tied to those periods, with no requirement that disputes must be concluded by the same tribunal initially appointed (!) (!) .
The appeals and writ applications challenging the validity of the second tribunal's appointment and jurisdiction were dismissed, affirming the government's authority to reconstitute tribunals and the legality of the procedures followed (!) .

Please let me know if you need a more detailed analysis or specific legal advice based on these points.

Judgement

MAHAJAN J.: The Government of Mysore by a notification dated 15-6-1951 under powers conferred by S. 7. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, constituted an Industrial Tribunal for a period of one year consisting of a chairman and two members for the adjudication of industrial disputes in accordance with the provisions of the Act. It appointed the following persons as chairman and members thereof :

Chairman : Rajadharmaprasakta T. Singaravelu Mudaliar.

Members : Janab Mohamed Sheriff, Sri S. Rangaramiah.

Two disputes between the management and the workers of the Mineiva Mills Ltd., Bangalore and two other disputes between the management and workers of the Mysore Spinning and Manufacturing Co., Ltd., Bangalore, were referred to these said Industrial Tribunal under S. 10(1)(c) of the Act for adjudication. Several other disputes were a1so referred for adjudication to the same tribunal. Till 15-6-1952, when the period of one year expired. the Tribunal had only disposed of 5 out of the 22 disputes referred to it. In the four disputes with which we are concerned the Tribunal had only framed issues and had not proceeded to record any evidence.

2. On 27-6-1952 the Government by another notification constituted another Tribunal for adjudication of these disputes and acting under S. 10(1)(c) of the Act referred all the disputes left undisposed of by the first Tribunal to the newly constituted Tribunal. This notification was not very happily worded and has been the subject matter of a good deal of comment in the courts below and also before us. It runs thus :

"Whereas under Notification No. L. S. 1075-L. W. 68-51-2, dated 15-6-1951, an Industrial Tribunal for the adjudication of industrial disputes in accordance with the Provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was constituted for a period of one year.

And whereas the said period of one year has expired creating a vacancy in the office of both the chairman and the two members , namely,

Chairman : Sri T. Singaravelu Mudaliar

Members : Janab Mohamed Sheriff,

Sri S. Rangaramiah.

Now therefore in exercise of the power conferred under Ss. 7 and 8, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. H. H. the Maharaja of Mysore is hereby pleased to constitute an Industrial Tribunal for adjudication of industrial disputes in the Mysore State in accordance with the provisions of the Act and further to appoint the following persons as chairman and members thereof :

Chairman : Sri B. R. Ramalingiah.

Members: Janab Mohamed Sheriff.

Sri K. Shamaraja Iyengar.

Under S. 10(1)(c). Industrial Disputes Act. 1947, H. H. the Maharaja is pleased to direct that the Tribunal now constituted under this notification shall hear and dispose of all the references made to the previous tribunal constituted under the notification of 15-6-1951 and which have remained undisposed of on15-6-1952."

When the second tribunal proceeded to hear the four disputes which are the subject matter of these appeals, the employers raised a number of preliminary objections regarding the jurisdiction of the tribunal to hear and dispose of the disputes, the principal contentions being, (1) that the time limit of one year fixed for the life of the first tribunal was unauthorized and illegal and therefore the first tribunal continued to exist in spite of the expiry of that period: (2) that the Government could not withdraw the disputes referred to the first tribunal from it, so long as the members of the first tribunal were available for. discharging their duties and that section 8 had no application to the facts of this case; and (3) that the trial of these disputes by the newly constituted tribunal, even if it had jurisdiction to entertain them could not be started from the stage at which they were left by the first tribunal and should begin de novo .

3. The employees contested these propositions & contended that it was competent for the Government to constitute one or more Industrial Tribunals under S. 7 and it was open to it to prescribe that these tribunals

Click Here to Read the rest of this document