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

1967 Supreme(SC) 31

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M. HIDAYATULLAH, S.M. SIKRI AND C.A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.
Workmen of Shri. Ranga Vilas Motors (P) Ltd., Appellants
Versus
Sri Rangavilas Motors (P) Ltd. and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 1065 of 1965, D/- 1-2-1967.
Advocates appeared
Mr. M. K. Ramamurthi, for Appellants; M/s. O. P. Malhotra, P. C. Bhathari Advocates and Mr. O. C. Mathur, Advocate of M/s. J. B. Dadachanji and Co; for Respondent No. 1.

Advocates:
J.B.DADACHAN, M.K.RAMAMURTHY, O.C.MATHUR, O.P.MALHOTRA, P.C.BHARTARI

The first proviso to S. 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, applies to disputes relating to matters specified in the Third Schedule and which are not likely to affect more than one hundred workmen.

Headnote:

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - S. 10(1)(d) - PROVISO - REFERENCE TO LABOUR COURT - DISPUTE RELATING TO TRANSFER AND REMOVAL FROM SERVICE - WHETHER WITHIN THE COMPETENCE OF LABOUR COURT.

Fact of the Case:

The dispute arose when the appellant, Mahalingam, was transferred from Bangalore to Krishnagiri by the respondent company. Mahalingam claimed that the transfer was illegal and that he was entitled to reinstatement in Bangalore with back wages. The company contended that the reference to the Labour Court was invalid as the dispute was an individual dispute and not an industrial dispute. The Labour Court held that the transfer was illegal and that Mahalingam was entitled to reinstatement and back wages. The High Court quashed the award of the Labour Court, holding that the dispute was not an industrial dispute and that the Labour Court did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute.

Finding of the Court:

The Supreme Court held that the dispute was an industrial dispute and that the Labour Court had jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute. The Court held that the first proviso to S. 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, applied to the dispute and that the State Government was justified in making the reference to the Labour Court.

Issues: 1. Whether the dispute was an industrial dispute? 2. Whether the Labour Court had jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the dispute was an industrial dispute because it affected more than one hundred workmen and was likely to affect the peace and harmony of the industry. 2. The Court held that the Labour Court had jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute because the first proviso to S. 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, applied to the dispute.

Final Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court, and restored the award of the Labour Court.

Judgement

SIKRI, J. : This appeal by special leave is directed against the Judgment of the Mysore High Court in Writ Petition No. 1096 of l961 by which the High Court allowed the Writ Petition and squashed the impugned award dated Jam 30, 1961, made by the Labour Court, Bangalore, in Reference No. 51 of 1960. In order to appreciate the points raised before us it is necessary to give the relevant facts.

2. The second appellant before us R. Mahalingam, was engaged as a Foreman in the workshop of Sri Rangavilas Motors (P) Ltd., the first respondent, hereinafter referred to as the Company, in the month of April, 1956. By an order dated January 21, 1960, Mahalingam was transferred from Bangalore to Krishnagiri where the head office of the Company is situated. Mahalingam entered into correspondence with the Company alleging that according to the conditions of his employment he could not be transferred from Bangalore to Krishnagiri. Ultimately, the Company framed charges against Mahalingam and removed him from service by an order dated April 7, 1960. On April 8, 1960, Mahalingam complained in writing to the Assistant Commissioner of Labour who was functioning as the Conciliation Officer at Bangalore. Later on, one Selvaraj took part in the conciliation proceedings on the authority of the resolution dated July 21, 1960, passed at the General Body meeting of Krishnagiri Motor Workers Union, among whose members 112 out of 170 were employees of the Company. Selvaraj filed a statement of claims before the Conciliation Officer on September 1, 1960. The Conciliation Officer reported to the Government that the conciliation proccedings had failed and thereupon the State Government by its order dated November 1, 1960, made in exercise of the powers conferred by cl. (c) of sub-s. (1) of S. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (XIV of 1947) - hereinafter referred to as the Act - referred for adjudication by the Labour Court, Bangalore, the following points in dispute :

"1. Whether the order of the management of Sri Rangavilas Motors (Private) Ltd., in transferring the workman Sri R. Mahalingarn Foreman, from their branch at Fort, Bangalore, to Krishnagiri, is illegal or unjustified. If so, is the workman entitled to reinstatement in Bangalore Branch with benefits of back wages or to any other relief ?

2. Is Sri R. Mahalingam, Foreman, entitled to arrears of increments and overtime wages, if so, what is the amount he is entitled to ?"Selvaraj, inter alia, prayed in his statement of claims, filed on behalf of Mahalingam, as follows:-

" ........it is prayed that the Hon ble Court may be pleased to direct the second party (the Company to cause the payment of overtime wages due, increments due (as mentioned in the annexure to this statement) as also the arrears of wages from 1st February 1960 to 15th March 1960 and order payment of back wages with effect from the date of termination of service by setting aside the said order of termination and to reinstate the workman with continuity of service."

3. The Company, in reply. contended that the reference was limited only to the question of transfer, and hence no question of reinstatement or hack wages could be adjudicated upon. Further, the Company contended that the reference was bad because it did not fall under any of the items enumerated in the Second Schedule to the Act. It was also contended that the dispute was an individual dispute. One further objection was raised to the effect that the reference should have been made to the National Tribunal and not to the Labour Court.

4. The Labour Court overruled all the objections regarding jurisdiction raised by the Company and made the award holding that both the transfer as well as the removal from service of Mahalingam were illegal and that he was entitled to overtime wages as well as increments. The Labour Court made the following further direction :

" The workman Sri Mshalingam should be reinstated in Bangalore branch with full back wages in continuity of






























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