Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
20th November, 1957
N.H. BHAGWATI, JAFER IMAM, P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, JJ.
State of U.P., Appellant
Versus
M/s. Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd., and another, Respondents.
State of U.P., Appellant v. M/s. Kamalapat Motilal Sugar Mills and another, Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 14 and 15 of 1955.
Civil Appeal No. 14 of 1955.
Civil Appeal No. 15 of 1955.
Advocates appeared
Mr. S. S. Dhawan, Senior Advocate, (M/s. G. C. Mathuru and C. P. Lal, Advocates, with him), for Appellants and Respondent No. 2 (Unions in both the Appeals); Mr. H. N. Sanyal, Additional Solicitor-General of India, (Mr. S. P. Varma, Advocate, with him) (in No. 14 of 55) and Mr. N. C. Chatterjee, Senior Advocate, (Mr. Radhey Lal Aggarwala, Advocate, with him), (in No. 15 of 55), for Respondent No. 1.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES - Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act XXVIII of 1947) - S. 6-A - Enlargement of time for submission of awards - S. 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Ordinance 1953 (Ordinance No. 1 of 1953) - Validation of awards - Interpretation.
Fact of the Case:
The Governor of Uttar Pradesh made a General Order No. 615 (LL)/XVIII-7 (LL) of 1951, superseding the General Order No. 781 (L)/XVIII dated 10-3-1948, under powers conferred by Cls. (b), (c), (d) and (g) of S. 3 and S. 8 of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act XXVIII of 1947). Cl. 16 of Order No. 615 specified the time within which the decision of the Tribunal or Adjudicator had to be pronounced, provided the State Government could extend the period from time to time. On 18-2-1953, this clause was amended and the time of 40 days was altered to 180 days. On 17-12-1952, the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Strawboard Manufacturing Co., Ltd. v. Gutta Mill Workers Union, 1953 SCR 439: was pronounced. In consequence of this decision the Act was amended by the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Ordinance 1953 (Ordinance No. 1 of 1953), promulgated by the Governor of Uttar Pradesh. The Ordinance came into force on 22-5-1953. By the provisions of S. 2 of the Ordinance S. 6-A was introduced into the Act. S. 3 of the Ordinance stated that: "For the removal of doubts it is hereby declared that: (1) any order of enlargement referred to in S. 6-A made prior to the commencement of this Ordinance under the principal Act or any order passed thereunder which would have been validly and properly made under the Principal Act if S. 6-A had been part of the Act shall be deemed to be and to have been validly and properly made thereunder; (2) no award whether delivered before or after the commencement of this Ordinance in any industrial dispute referred prior to the said commencement for adjudication under the Principal Act shall be invalid on the ground merely that the period originally specified or any enlargement thereof had already expired at the date of the making declaring or submitting of the award and any action or proceeding taken, direction issued or jurisdiction exercised in pursuance of or upon such award be good and valid in law as if S. 6-A had been in force at all material dates; (3) Every proceeding pending at the commencement of this ordinance before any court of tribunal against an award shall be decided as if the provisions of S. 6-A had been in force at all material dates."
Finding of the Court:
The Supreme Court held that the awards in the cases before it were invalid as they had been submitted beyond the time specified in the order of reference or beyond the extended period within which the award had to be submitted. The Court further held that S. 3 (2) of the Ordinance validated awards against which no judicial proceeding was pending at the commencement of the Ordinance, while S. 3 (3) applied to awards against which a proceeding was pending before a Court or a Tribunal before the Ordinance came into force.
Issues: Whether the awards in the cases before the Court were valid in law and made with jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court interpreted the provisions of S. 6-A of the Act and S. 3 of the Ordinance. It held that S. 6-A empowered the State Government to enlarge the period for the submission of an award even though the period originally fixed or enlarged might have expired. The Court further held that S. 3 (2) of the Ordinance validated awards against which no judicial proceeding was pending at the commencement of the Ordinance, while S. 3 (3) applied to awards against which a proceeding was pending before a Court or a Tribunal before the Ordinance came into force.
Final Decision: Civil Appeal No. 14 of 1955 was dismissed with costs and Civil Appeal No. 15 of 1955 was allowed with costs and the decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. III-321/53 before it was set aside.
Judgment
IMAM, J. : These two appeals by special leave have been heard together as they arise out of a single judgment of the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India, Lucknow, dated 30-9-1953, passed in seven appeals before it. As the question for consideration in the appeals before this Court is the same, this judgment will govern both the appeals before us. Civil Appeal Nos. 14 and 15 of 1955 arise out of Appeal Nos. III-198 of 1953 and III-321 of 1953 respectively before the Labour Appellate Tribunal.
2. The question for consideration before the Labour Appellate Tribunal was whether the awards from which the seven appeals had been filed before that Tribunal were valid in law and made with jurisdiction. It is this very question which arises in the appeals before us.
3. Before dealing with the question raised in those appeals it is necessary to state certain facts. On 15-3-1951, the Governor of Uttar Pradesh made a General Order consisting of numerous clauses under powers conferred on him by Cls. (b), (c), (d) and (g) of S. 3 and S. 8 of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act XXVIII of 1947). Hereinafter referred to as the Act, in supersession of the general Order No. 781 (L)/XVIII dated 10-3-1948. The Order of 15-3-1951, was numbered 615 (LL)/XVIII-7 (LL) of 1951, hereinafter referred to as Order No. 615. Under Cl. 16 of Order No. 615, the decision of the Tribunal or Adjudicator was to be pronounced within 40 days, excluding holidays but not annual vacations observed by courts subordinate to the High Court, from the date of reference made to it by the State Government concerning any industrial dispute. The proviso to it authorized the State Government to extend the period for the submission of the award from time to time. On 18-2-1953, this clause was amended and the time of 40 days was altered to 180 days. On 17-12-1952, the judgment of this Court in the case of Strawboard Manufacturing Co., Ltd. v. Gutta Mill Workers Union, 1953 SCR 439: was pronounced. In consequence of this decision the Act was amended by the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Ordinance 1953 (Ordinance No. 1 of 1953), hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance, promulgated by the Governor of Uttar Pradesh. The Ordinance came into force on 22-5-1953. By the provisions of S. 2 of the Ordinance S. 6-A was introduced into the Act. S. 2 of the Ordinance states:
"After S. 6 of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Principal Act), the following shall and be deemed always to have been added as S. 6-A.
"6-A. Enlargement of time for submission of awards . Where any period is specified in any order made under or in pursuance of this Act referring any industrial dispute for adjudication within which the award shall be made, declared or submitted, it shall be competent for the State Government, from time to time, to enlarge such period even though the period originally fixed or enlarged may have expired."
Section 3 of the Ordinance states:
" Removal of doubts and validation - For the removal of doubts it is hereby declared that:
(1) any order of enlargement referred to in S. 6-A made prior to the commencement of this Ordinance under the principal Act or any order passed thereunder which would have been validly and properly made under the Principal Act if S. 6-A had been part of the Act shall be deemed to be and to have been validly and properly made thereunder;
(2) no award whether delivered before or after the commencement of this Ordinance in any industrial dispute referred prior to the said commencement for adjudication under the Principal Act shall be invalid on the ground merely that the period originally specified or any enlargement thereof had already expired at the date of the making declaring or submitting of the award and any action or proceeding taken, direction issued or jurisdiction exercised in pursuance of or upon such award be good and valid in law as if S. 6-A had been in force at all material dates;
(3)
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
