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

1969 Supreme(SC) 133

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.M. SHELAT AND V. BHARGAVA, JJ.
Heavy Engineering Mazdoor Union, Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 1463 of 1968, D/- 12-3-1969.
Advocates appeared
M/s. A. K. Nag, Jai Kishan and Ranen Roy, Advocates, for Appellant; Mr. U.P. Singh, Advocate, for Respondent No. 1; Mr. B. P. Singh, Advocate, for Respondent No. 2.

Advocates:
For the Petitioner:Mr. B.A.Bashir, Sr. Adv, with Ms. Farrah, Adv., Mr. M.M.Iqbal, Adv., Mr. Hilal A Wani, Adv., Mr. I. Sofi, Advocate, Mr. F.A.Wani, Adv., Mr. M.Ashraf Wani, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. T.H.Khawja, AAG, Mr. N.H.Shah, AAG, Mr. S.R. Hussain, Advocate.

Headnote:

Companies Act, 1956 - Section 617 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 226 and 227 - Memorandum of Association and Articles of Association of company - Share capital - Power to give directions as regards functioning of company - Wages and salaries - Directors of company are appointed by President - In its standing orders, company is described as a Government undertaking - Workmen employed by company have two unions, Heavy Engineering Mazdoor Union and Hatia Project Workers Union - Whether second Saturday in a month should be an off-day - Held, The word employer as given in Section 2 (g) of Act may be looked at with some profit as legislature there has used identical words while defining an employer - No such authority has been prescribed in regard to business carried on by respondent company - But that does not mean that head of department which gives directions as aforesaid or which supervises over functioning of company is employer within meaning of Section 2 (g) – Court view contention that appropriate Government to make aforesaid references was State Government and not Central Government has no merit and cannot be sustained - Second contention that questions referred to were regulated by company s standing orders and an application for a modification of said standing orders relating to those questions was actually pending before certifying authority under Industrial Employees (Standing Orders) Act precluded a reference thereof under Section 10 of Act requires no discussion as it is covered by decision in Management of Bangalore, Cotton and Silk Mills - Appeal dismissed.

Judgment

SHELAT, J. : The Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd., Ranchi is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. Its entire share capital is contributed by the Central Government and all its shares have been registered in the name of the President of India and certain officers of the Central Government. It is, therefore, a Government company within the meaning of Section 617 of the Companies Act. The Memorandum of Association and the Articles of Association of the company confer large powers on the Central Government including the power to give directions as regards the functioning of the company. The Wages and salaries of its employees are also determined in accordance with the said directions. The directors of the company are appointed by the President. In its standing orders, the company is described as a Government undertaking. The workmen employed by the company have two unions, the Heavy Engineering Mazdoor Union and the Hatia Project Workers Union.

2. Certain disputes having arisen between the company and its workmen, into which it is not necessary for the purposes of this judgment to go, the State Government of Bihar by its notification dated November 15, 1966 referred two questions to the Industrial Tribunal for its adjudications firstly, as regards the number of festival holidays and secondly, whether the second Saturday in a month should be an off-day. The Mazdoor Union thereupon filed a writ petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution in the High Court of Patna disputing the validity of the said reference on two grounds; (1) that the appropriate Government to make the said reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was the Central Government and not the State Government and (2) that the questions referred to were at the time actually pending before the certifying authority under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 on an application for modification of the company s standing orders and that therefore the said questions would not be industrial disputes which could be validly referred for adjudication. Before the High Court it was conceded that the company was not an industry carried on by the Central Government but the contention was that considering the fact that the entire share capital was contributed by the Central Government and extensive powers were conferred on it, the company must be regarded as an industry carried on under the authority of the Central Government and that therefore it was that Government which was the appropriate Government which could make the said reference. On the second question, the contention was that the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act was a self-contained code, that once a question relating to conditions of service was before the certifying authority constituted under that Act and was pending before him, the said question could not be an industrial dispute which could be referred for adjudication under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. It was urged that consequently the reference on both the grounds was invalid. The High Court negatived both the contentions and upheld the validity of the reference. The Mazdoor Union obtained a certificate under Article 133 (1) (c) and filed this appeal impugning the correctness of that decision.

3. Under Section 2 (a) appropriate Government (leaving aside the words which are not relevant for our purposes) means (i) in relation to any industrial dispute concerning an industry carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government, the Central Government, and (ii) in relation to any other industrial dispute the State Government. As was done before the High Court, Mr. Nag, appearing for the appellant-union, conceded that he would not contend that the company is an industry carried on by the Central Government but argued that it is an industry carried on under the authority of the Central Government and therefore it is that Government and not the State Government whic







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