SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1960 Supreme(SC) 63

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
8th March 1960.
P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR AND K.N. WANCHOO, JJ.
M/s. U. P. Electric Supply Co. Ltd., Appellants
Versus
The Workmen of M/s. S. M. Choudhary, Contractors and another, Respondents.
State of U.P., Intervener.
Civil Appeal No. 481 of 1958.
Advocates appeared
Mr. M. C. Setalvad, Attorney General for India (M/s. S. N. Andley, J. B. Dadachanji, Rameshwar Nath and P. L. Vohra, Advocates of M/s. Rajinder Narain and Co., with him), for Appellants; Mr. A. D. Mathur, Advocate, for Respondent No. 1. M/s. G. C. Mathur and C. P. Lal, Advocate, for Respondents No. 2. M/s. G. N. Dikshit and C. P. Lal, Advocates, for Intervener.

Advocates:
A.D.MATHUR, C.N.DIXIT, C.P.LAL, G.C.MATHUR, J.B.DADACHAN, M.C.SETALVAD, P.L.VOHRA, RAJINDAR NARAIN, RAMESHWAR NATH ROY, S.N.ANDLEY

A tribunal cannot decide a question that is not referred to it in the reference order.

Headnote:

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - S. 5 - REFERENCE OF DISPUTE - JURISDICTION OF TRIBUNAL - DISPUTE BETWEEN CONTRACTORS AND THEIR WORKMEN - IMPLEADING COMPANY AS PARTY - TRIBUNAL CANNOT DECIDE QUESTION OF WHETHER WORKMEN ARE EMPLOYEES OF COMPANY OR CONTRACTORS UNLESS REFERRED.

Fact of the Case:

A dispute arose between contractors and their workmen in 1956. The Government of Uttar Pradesh made a reference to the Industrial Tribunal under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, excluding the issue of non-abolition of the contract system. Later, the company was impleaded as a party to the dispute, but the matters in dispute remained unamended.

Finding of the Court:

The tribunal held that the workmen concerned were the workmen of the company.

Issues: Whether the tribunal had jurisdiction to decide the question of whether the workmen concerned were the workmen of the company or of the contractors.

Ratio Decidendi: The tribunal did not have jurisdiction to decide the question of whether the workmen concerned were the workmen of the company or of the contractors because this issue was not referred to it in the reference order.

Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the order of the tribunal was set aside.

Judgment

WANCHOO, J.: This is an appeal by special leave against the order of the Industrial Tribunal Allahabad. The appellant is the U. P. Electric Supply Co. Ltd., Lucknow, (hereinafter called the company). It appears that the company used to employ Messrs. S. M. Choudhary (hereinafter referred to as the contractors) as its contractors for doing certain work for it. The contractors in their turn used to employ a number of persons to carry out the work which they had taken on contract. A dispute arose between the contractors and their workmen in 1956 and an application was made on June 6, 1956, by the workmen before the conciliation board. To this application both the company as well as the contractors were parties and four matters were referred by the workmen to the conciliation board, namely, (i) non-grant of bonus for the years 1953-54 and 1954-55; (ii) non-grant of festival holidays; (iii) non-fixation of minimum wages of these workmen at par with the workmen employed by the company; and (iv) non-abolition of the contract system. Efforts at conciliation failed and thereupon the Government of Uttar Pradesh made a reference to the Industrial Tribunal under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, No. XXVIII of 1947, (hereinafter called the Act). In this reference only three points were referred out of the four which were before the conciliation board, namely, those relating to bonus, festival holidays and payment of wages to these workmen at part with the workmen of the company. The fourth point which was raised before the conciliation board (namely, non-abolition of the contract system) was not referred. The parties to this reference were two, namely-(i) the contractors and (ii) their workmen. The appellant was not a party to this reference. On August 13, 1956, another notification was issued by the U. P. Government under Ss. 3, 5 and 8 of the Act by which the company was impleaded as a party to the dispute referred by the notification of July 31, 1956. It is remarkable, however, that the matters of dispute which were specified in the reference dated July 31, 1956, were not amended as they could have been under the proviso to S. 4 of the Act, by adding the fourth point of dispute before the conciliation board, namely, the non-abolition of the contract system. When the matter came up before the industrial court in framed a number of issues; and the first and most important issue ran thus:

"Are the workmen concerned employees of the U. P. Electric Supply Co. Ltd., Lucknow or of Messrs. S. M. Chaudhary, contractors?"

2. The main objection of the company was that the dispute, if any, was between the contractors and their employees and that there was no dispute between the company and its workmen. It was further objected that there was no valid or legal order of the Government referring any dispute between the company and its workmen to the tribunal and therefore the tribunal had no jurisdiction. On the merits it was urged that the workmen concerned were not the workmen of the company and there was no relationship of employer and employee between the company and these workmen and therefore the company could not be regarded as a party to the dispute between the contractors and their workmen.

3. It is therefore clear that the main question which was considered by the tribunal was whether the workmen concerned were the workmen of the company or of the contractors. As the tribunal itself says,

"the crux of the whole case was whether the workmen concerned were the employees of the company".

The tribunal went into the evidence in this connection and came to the conclusion that these workmen were in fact and in reality the employees of the company.

4. The main contention on behalf of the company before us is that even assuming that the Government had power under S. 5 read with Cl. 12 of G. O. No. U-464 (LL) XXXVI-B-257 (LL) 1954, dated July 14, 1954, to implead the company as a party, the main issue decided by the tribunal was not referred to in a



Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top