1956 Supreme(SC) 89

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.R. Das, C.J.I., P.N.Bhagwati, T.L.Venkatarama Ayyar, JJ.
Central Provinces Transport Service Limitednagpur
Versus
Raghunath Gopal Patwardhan
Case No. : 320 of 1955
Date of Decision : 11/6/56

Headnote:Central Provinces and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlem.ent Act (XXIII of 1947), Sectiun 2 (Io)-Dism.issed em.ployee is em.ployee withio the m.eaning of the section.

       Sections 2 (12), 16-"lndustrial dispute" includes dispute by individual workm.an.

       Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-lndustrial Employm.ent (Standing Orders) Act, 1946-Their object and scope.

       The respondent was employed as a mechanic in the Central Provinces Transport Services Ltd., Nagpur a public limited company. He was suspected of having stolen goods belonging to the Company. An enquiry was held into the matter, and that resulted in his dismissal on 28.6.1950 on the grouud of gross negligence and misconduct. He was then prosecuted on a charge of theft but was acquitted on 3.3.1952. Thereafter, he applied to the Company to be reinstated, and failing to get redress filed on 1.10.1952, an application before the Labour Commissioner under S. 16 (2) of the C.P. and Berar Industrial Disputes Act No. 23 of 1947 for reinstatement and compensation. The Company resisted the claim on the ground, inter alia, that as the applicant had been dismissed on 28.6.1 Y50, he was not an employee on the date of the application, that accordingly there was no "industrial dispute touching the dismissal of an employee" as required by S. 16, sub. sections (1) and (2) of ~he Act, and that, in consequence, the proceedings under that section were incompetent. The Assistant Labour Commissioner before whom the matter came up for hearing, agreed with this contention, and dismissed the application. On revision under S. 16 (5) of the Act, the Provincial Indus~rial Court held that a dismissed employee was an employee as defined III S. 2 (10) of the Act, that a dispute by such an employee was an industrial dispute within S.2 (12) of the Act and that the application under S. 16 (2) of the Act was therefore maintainable. This was upheld b~ the Lab~)Ur Appellate Tribunal on appeal. The Company then preferred further appeal to the Supreme Court against that decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal.

       Held: (dismissing the appeal I ) : (1) A dismissed employee is an employee as defined in S. 2 (!O). of the

       1.Form 1954 Lab. A.C. 889 Born.

       2. Section 2 (10) of the Act defines an "employee" as fol1ow~ :

       :Employee" means a~y person employed by an em~loyer to do any skilled or unsktlled manual er clerical work for contract or hire or reward in any industry and includes an employee discharged on account of any dispute relating to a change in respect of which a notice is given under S. 31 or 32 whether before or after the discharge. the Federal Court in Western India Automobile Association v. Industrial Tribunal Bombay.! There the point for determination was whether a claim for reinstatement by a dismissed workman was an industrial dispute as defined in S. 2 (k) of the Indian Industrial Disputes Act No. 14 of 1947. It was held that the definition in S. 2 (k) including as it did, all disputes or diffe~ences in connection with employment or non-employment of a person was sufficiently wide to include a claim for reinstatement by a dismissed workman. Section 2 (12)2 and S. 2 (13)3 of the Act are substantially in pari materia with S. 2 (k) of the Act No. 14 of 1947, and the ratio of the decision in 1949 F.C.R. 321, will be as much applicable to the one enactment as to the other. The definition of employee in the Act would include one who has been dismissed and the respondent cannot be denied relief only by reason of the fact that he was not in employment on the date of the application.

       (2) The C. P. and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act, 1947 is not in pari materia with Act No. 14 of 1947. It no doubt covers the ground occupied by that Act and contains provisions relating to arbitration, adjudication, awards, strikes and lockouts. But it contains more. It enacts in Ch. IV provisions which are intended to regulate the contract of employment between employer and workman, a subject which is covered. by distinct piece of central legislation, Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act No. 20 of 1946. The object of that Act was, as appears from the preamble thereto, "to require employers in industrial establishments formally to define conditions of employment under them", whereas the object of the Industrial Disputes Act No. 14 of 1947 is as set out in its preamble "to make provision for the investigation and settlement of industrial disputes and for certain other purposes." Thus even though the two enactments are pieces of what is termed labour legislation, their objects and their vision are different. . While Act No. 14 of 1947 may be said to be primarily concerned with disputes of labour as a class, Act No. 20 of 1946 is directed to getting the rights of an employee under a contract defined. The C. P. and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act No. 23 of 1947 covers the ground occupied by both Act No. 20 of 1946 and Act No. 14 of 1947, and so it would be proper to interpret the expression "industrial dispute" therein in a sense wider than what it bears• in Act No. 14 of 1947 so as to cover not only disputes of workmen as a class but also their individual disputes.

       (3) Section 16 of the Act is intended to enable au employee to enforce his individual rights when there is an order of dismissal, discharge, removal or suspension, and in the context, "industrial dispute" must be interpreted as including the claim of an employee who has been dismissed, for reinstatement and compensation.

       [Central Provinces Transport Services Ltd. v. Raghunath Gopal Patwardhan, (1956) S.C.R. 956 : A.I.R. 1957 S.C. 104].

       1.1949 F.e.R. 321 : A.I.R. 1949 F.e. Ill. 2. Section 2 (12) of the Act defines:

       "Industrial dispute" as meaning "any dispute or difference concerned with an industrial matter arising between employer and employee or between employers or employees."

       3. Under S. 2 (13) of the Act:

       "Industrial matter" means "any matter relating to work, pay, wages, reward, hours, privileges, rights or duties of employers or employees or the mode, terms and conditions of employment or refusal to employ and includes questions pertaining to (a) the relationship between employer and employee, or to the dismissal or non-employment of any person."