Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A. ALAGIRISWAMI, P.K. GOSWAMI AND N.L. UNTWALIA, JJ.
The Premier Automobiles Ltd. Appellants
Versus
Kamlakar Shantaram Wadke and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal Nos. 922 of 1973 and 2317 of 1972,
D/- 26-8-1975.
(1) Civil Appeal No. 922 of 1973:
(2) Civil Appeal No. 2317 of 1972:
Automatic Electric Pvt. Ltd., Appellant
Versus
Engineering Mazdoor Sabha and others, Respondents.
Advocates Appeared
In C. A. No. 922 of 1973.
M/s. S. D. Vimadalal, A. K. Sen, Sr. Advocates, (Mr. I.N. Shroff, Advocate with them), for Appellant; M/s. F.D. Damnia S.K. Dholakia, Subhash Oberai and R.C. Bhatia, Advocates with him) (for Nos. 1-2) and Mr. F.S.Nariman, Sr. Advocate, (Mr. P.H. Parekh and Miss Bhandare, Advocates of M/s. Bhandare Parekh and Co., Advocates with him) (for Nos. 3-6) for Respondents. Mr. Rameshwar Nath, Advocate for Respondent/Intervener.
In C.A. No. 2317 of 1972.
Mr. A.K. Sen, Sr. Advocate (Mr. Rameshwar Nath, Advocate of M/s. R.N. and Co. Advocate with him), for Appellant; Mr. Simnath Iyer, Sr. Advocate (M/s. F.D. Damania and B.R. Agarwala Advocates of M/s. Ghagrat and Co. Advocate with him) for Respondents Nos. 1 to 3.
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 9A and 18 (1) - Motor Production Department - Dispute Relates to Workmen - Appellant companies carries on a big industry and owns several plants. One such plant is situated at Bombay - In this plant there is a department known as Motor Production Department - Dispute relates to the workmen of this department - There seem to be three groups of workmen in the department aforesaid. One group was represented by Engineering Mazdoor Sabha - hereinafter called the Sabha Union which is a registered Trade - Union and was once a recognized union of the workmen of the appellant company - Respondents 1 and 2 who instituted the suit in question in the City Civil Court at Bombay are members of this union. Later on the Sabha Union was recognized and another registered Trade Union known as Association of Engineering workers - hereinafter called Association Union - was recognised -by the appellant company - This Association Union, respondent No. 3, was impleaded as defendant No. 2 in action – Held, Decision of this Court was with reference to termination of the award under Section 19, it is clear that termination of the agreement in this case was not accepted by the union. It sought to challenge it by institution of a suit - It is clear that the suit was in relation to enforcement of a right created under Act - Remedy in Civil Court was barred. The only remedy available to the workmen concerned was the raising of an industrial dispute. It was actually raised, and, as a matter of fact, shortly after the institution of the suit the disputes were referred by the Government to Industrial Tribunal in I. T. Number 33 of 1972 on 25th January - Appeals allowed.
The Civil Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain suits involving industrial disputes that seek enforcement of rights or obligations created under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. [1000167490022] (!) (!) (!) (!)
An "industrial dispute" includes any dispute or difference between employers and workmen connected with employment, non-employment, terms of employment, or conditions of labour. [1000167490007] (!)
Settlements under Section 18(1) of the Act, arrived at by agreement between employer and workmen outside conciliation proceedings, bind only the parties to the agreement. [1000167490007] (!) [1000167490026]
The Act provides extensive machinery for settlement and adjudication of industrial disputes, including Works Committees, Conciliation Officers, Labour Courts, and Tribunals, with powers broader than those of Civil Courts, such as creating new contracts or ordering reinstatement. [1000167490007]
Where a statute creates a liability or right and provides a specific remedy, that remedy is exclusive, and Civil Courts cannot enforce performance in any other manner. [1000167490008][1000167490009][1000167490010][1000167490011]
Civil Court jurisdiction exists if the dispute is not an industrial dispute or does not relate to rights under the Act; it is alternative (at election) for general/common law rights not under the Act, but exclusive under the Act for Act-created rights. [1000167490022] (!) (!) (!) (!) [1000167490023]
Incentive schemes or changes in conditions of service via settlements under the Act cannot be challenged via Civil Court suits for injunction if they involve enforcement of Act rights; the remedy is raising an industrial dispute. [1000167490002][1000167490003][1000167490026][1000167490027]
Termination of a settlement under Section 19(2) of the Act is valid if proper notice is given, and challenging it via Civil Court suit is barred; the remedy is an industrial dispute. [1000167490030] (!)
Perpetual injunctions under the Specific Relief Act cannot restrain breaches of determinable contracts like settlements under the Act, which can be terminated under Section 19(2) or varied under Section 9A. [1000167490028]
Representative suits under Order I Rule 8 CPC cannot be maintained in Civil Court for industrial disputes involving different groups of workmen with rights under Act settlements. [1000167490026]
Disputes over settlements binding non-members or changes without Section 9A notice must be resolved via industrial dispute machinery, not Civil Court. [1000167490004][1000167490026][1000167490027]
Judgment
UNTWALIA , J. - These two appeals filed by special leave of this Court an important question of law as to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the suits of the kinds filed in the two cases is common. Mr. Vimadalal, learned counsel for the appellant company in Civil Appeal No.922 of 1973 followed by Mr. Nariman, appearing for respondents 3 to 6 and Mr. A.K. Sen, learned counsel for the appellant company in Civil Appeal No. 2317 of 1972 argued in support of the ouster of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. Mr. Sorabjee, appearing on behalf of the plaintiff respondents 1 and 2 vehemently combated the proposition. He was followed by Mr. Som Nath Iyer; learned counsel for the respondent Union in Civil Appeal No. 2317 of 1972. We shall proceed to state the facts of Civil Appeal No. 922 of 1973 first, discuss the point of jurisdiction as also the other points involved in that appeal and then briefly refer to the facts of the other case.
2. The appellant company carries on a big industry and owns several plants. One such plant is situated at Kurla, Bombay. In this plant there is a department known as Motor Production Department. The dispute relates to the workmen of this department. There seem to be three groups of workmen in the department aforesaid. One group was represented by Engineering Mazdoor Sabha - hereinafter called the Sabha Union which is a registered Trade. Union and was once a recognized union of the workmen of the appellant company. Respondents 1 and 2 who instituted the suit in question in the City Civil Court at Bombay are members of this union. Later on the Sabha Union was recognized and another registered Trade Union known as Association of Engineering workers - hereinafter called the Association Union - was recognised -by the appellant company. This Association Union, respondent No. 3, was impleaded as defendant No. 2 in the action. Besides the members of these two unions, there are certain workmen who are members of neither.
3. An incentive scheme providing for certain incentive payments to the workmen of the Motor Production Department was introduced by the appellant company in pursuance of agreements entered from time to time between the company and the Sabha Union. The last of such agreements executed between them was dated the 31st December,1966. It appears that at the time of the execution of the last agreement there were 425 workmen in the department Broadly speaking the incentive scheme was to make extra payments at the rate of 3.5 per cent over the basic production of 650 units upto the target of 900 on even extra production of 25 units. In other words, the workmen were to get 35 per cent. more if they produced 900 units in a month of 25 working days. The next target fixed was 1250 units payable at the rate of 4 per cent. per 25 units. In other words, the workmen were to get 35 per cent. + 56 per cent, total 91 per cent more if they reached the production target of 1250 per month. It further appears that after the recognition of the Association Union, 27 more persons who were previously learners were taken in as regular temporary employees in the Motor Production Department on and from 1st September, 1970. The strength of the workmen thus according to the case of the appellant and respondent No. 3 went up from 425 to 452, naturally necessitating the revision of the norm and target figures of the incentive scheme. Some sort of arrangement was arrived at between the company and the Association Union which led to a protest by the Sabha Union in October, 1970. Eventually a definite settlement in writing was arrived at between the appellant and respondent No. 3 on the 9th of January, 1971 making the settlement effective from 1-9-1970. The norm figure of 650 units was raised to 725 and the first and the second target figures were raised from 900 to 975 and 1250 to 1325 respectively. The rates of incentive payment at 3.5 per cent in the first target and 4 per cent in the second target were reta
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
