1. Appeal against an industrial award concerning wages and working conditions, challenging the validity of the award's publication timeline under the Industrial Disputes Act. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
1967 Supreme(SC) 215
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.N. WANCHOO, C.J.I., AND G.K. MITTER, J.
The Remington Rand of India Ltd., Appellant
Versus
The Workmen, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 548 of 1967,
D/- 11-8-1967.
Advocates Appeared
Mr. H. R. Gokhale, Senior Advocate, ( Mr. D. N. Gupta, Advocate, with him), for Appellant, Mr. M. K. Ramamurthi, Mrs. Shyamala Pappu. M/s. Vineet Kumar and R. Nagratnam, Advocates, for Respondents.
The time limit for the government to publish an industrial award under Section 17(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act is directory, not mandatory. Consequently, publication after the prescribed thirty-day period does not invalidate the award.
Headnote:(A) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 17(1), 17(2), 17-A, 18 and 19 - Publication of award - Time limit of thirty days - Whether mandatory or directory - Provision is directory; delay in publication does not render the award invalid as no penalty is prescribed for non-compliance and such a strict interpretation would lead to needless harassment of parties and fresh references (Para 3).
(B) Interpretation of Statutes - Use of the word "shall" - To determine if a provision is mandatory or directory, the court must consider the nature and design of the statute, the consequences of non-compliance, the impact of other provisions, and whether the object of the legislation will be defeated or furthered (Para 3).
Facts of the case:
An appeal was filed against an award made by an Industrial Tribunal concerning the revision of wage scales, dearness allowance, gratuity schemes, leave facilities, working hours, workload, and moving staff allowances. The appellant contended that the award was invalid because it was published beyond the thirty-day period prescribed under Section 17(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the time limit for publication of the award is directory and not mandatory. Regarding the merits, the court remanded the issue of wage scales to the Tribunal for reconsideration, modified the gratuity scheme to align with other branches, and upheld the Tribunal's directions on working hours, workload, and touring allowances.
Issues: Whether the requirement to publish an award within thirty days under Section 17(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act is mandatory, and whether non-compliance with this timeline invalidates the award.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the fixation of a time limit is intended to ensure publication is not held up, but does not render the award invalid if delayed due to sufficient cause. Since no penalty is attached to the delay and the object of the legislation is to settle disputes, the provision is directory.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the thirty-day publication period under Section 17(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act is mandatory and whether wage and benefit revisions were justified. (Para 2 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 )
3. The court evaluated the legislative intent of Section 17(1), noting that strict time limits would cause undue hardship and unnecessary litigation without serving the statute's object. (Para 3 )
4. The time limit for publication of an award under Section 17(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act is directory, and late publication does not invalidate the award. (Para 3 )
5. Appeal dismissed; matter remanded for wage scale revision; gratuity scheme modified; remaining award upheld. (Para 11 )
6. Is the thirty-day publication period under Section 17(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act mandatory?
No, the time limit is directory. While the government is obligated to publish the award, publication beyond thirty days does not render the award invalid, as strict adherence could lead to unnecessary fresh references and harassment of parties. (Para 3 )
7. What criteria are used to determine if a statutory provision is mandatory or directory?
The court considers the legislature's real intention, the nature and design of the statute, the consequences of non-compliance, whether a penalty is provided, and whether the object of the legislation is defeated or furthered. (Para 3 )
8. What are the consequences of delaying the publication of an industrial award?
A slight delay in publishing the award under Section 17(1) results in postponing its finality under Section 17(2) or its becoming enforceable under Section 17-A, but it does not invalidate the award itself. (Para 2 , 3 )
Judgement
MITTER, J. :- This appeal by the Remington Rand of India Ltd. against their workmen arises out of an award dated 5th October, 1965 made by the Industrial Tribunal, Alleppey published in the Kerala Gazette dated 15th November, 1966.
2. The first point taken against this award is that it cannot be given effect to as it was published beyond the period fixed in the Act. The notification accompanying the gazette publication stated that Government had received the award on 14th October, 1966. It was argued by Mr. Gokhale that in terms of S. 17 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act the award had to be published within a period of thirty days from the date of its receipt by the appropriate Government". According to learned counsel, the award having reached Government on 14th October, 1966 it should have been published at the latest on 12th November, 1966 as S. 17 (1) of the Act was mandatory. Our attention was also drawn to sub-s. (2) of S. 17 according to which it is only the award published under sub-s. (1) of S. 17 that is final and cannot be called in question by any court in any manner. We were also referred to S. 17-A and S. 19. Under sub-s. (1) of S. 17-A an award becomes enforceable on the expiry of thirty days from the date of its publication under S. 17 and under sub-s. (3) of S.19 an award is to remain in operation for a period of one year from the date on which the award becomes enforceable under S. 17-A. From all these provisions it was argued that the limits of time mentioned fin the Sections were mandatory and not directory and if an award was published beyond the period of thirty days, in contravention of S. 17 (1) it could not be given effect to. To fortify his argument, learned control relied on certain observation of this Court in Sinilk Ltd. v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh , (1964) 2 SCR 448 at p. 452: In that case, there was an order referring certain disputes between the appellant and its workmen to the Industrial Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh. The Tribunal sent its award to Government in September 1957. Before the Government could publish the award, the parties to the dispute came to a settlement and on 1st October, 1957 a letter was written to the Government jointly on behalf of the employer and the employees intimating that the dispute which had been pending before the Tribunal had been settled and a request was made to Government not to publish the award. Government expressed its inability to withhold the publication taking the view that S. 17 of the Act was mandatory. The appellants filed writ petitions before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh under Article 226 of the Constitution praying that Government might be directed not to publish the award sent to it by the Industrial Tribunal. The High Court held that S. 17 was mandatory and it was not open to Government to withhold publication. The contention on behalf of the appellants was that S. 17 providing for the publication of the award was directory and not mandatory. Mr. Gokhale relied on the passage at p. 452 (of SCR) : of the judgment reading :
"It is clear therefore, reading S. 17 and S. 17-A together, that the intention behind S. 17 (1) is that a duty is cast on Government to publish the award within thirty days of its receipt and the provision for its publication is mandatory and not merely directory."
Ultimately, however, on a conspectus of Ss. 17, 17-A, 18 and 19, it was observed that
"though S. 17 (1) is mandatory and the Government is bound to publish the award received by it from an industrial tribunal, the situation arising in a case like the present is of an exceptional nature and requires a reconciliation between S. 18 (1) and S. 18 (3), and in such a situation, the only way to reconcile the two provisions is to withhold the publication of the award, as a binding settlement has already come into force ..............".
Reference was also made to the case of Erumeli Estate v. Industrial Tribunal , 1962-2 Lab LJ 144 (Ker). There the question directly aros
