IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Chagla, C.J. and Bhagwati N.H. , J.
Appellants: Suryaprakash Weaving Factory
Vs.
Respondent: The Industrial Court
O.C.J. Appeal No. 5 of 1950
Decided On: 04.09.1950
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: M.P. Amin and M.M. Desai, Advs.
For Respondents/Defendant: C.K. Daphtary, Adv. General for Respondent No. 1 and State of Bombay and D.H. Buch, Adv. for Respondent No. 2
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE - REFERENCE TO INDUSTRIAL COURT - POWER OF GOVERNMENT - BOMBAY INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1946, SECTIONS 42(2), 73 - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:
A dispute arose between the petitioners (employers) and their employees regarding wages, which is covered by item 9 of Schedule II of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946. The Government referred the dispute to the Industrial Court under Section 73 of the Act, without a notice of change being given under Section 42(2) by the employees.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Government had the power to refer the dispute to the Industrial Court under Section 73, even though no notice of change had been given under Section 42(2). The Court interpreted Section 73 broadly and held that the power of the Government to refer an industrial dispute to the Industrial Court is untrammelled and is not confined to cases where an industrial dispute has taken the form of a notice of change being given by an employee as contemplated by Section 42(2).
Issues: Whether the Government had the power to refer the dispute to the Industrial Court under Section 73 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, without a notice of change being given under Section 42(2) by the employees.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court interpreted Section 73 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, broadly and held that the power of the Government to refer an industrial dispute to the Industrial Court is untrammelled and is not confined to cases where an industrial dispute has taken the form of a notice of change being given by an employee as contemplated by Section 42(2). The Court reasoned that the definition of "industrial dispute" in the Act does not suggest that it only arises after a notice of change is given under Section 42(2), and that other provisions of the Act, such as Section 34(6)(c), contemplate the existence of an industrial dispute before a notice of change has been given.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the lower court, which had held that the Industrial Court was competent to deal with the reference made to it by the Government under Section 73.
Chagla, C.J.
1. This appeal arises out of an petition filed for an order under Section 45, Specific-Relief Act, requiring the Industrial Court of Bombay to forbear from arbitrating upon certain industrial disputes. Tendolkar J. before whom the petition came in the first instance held that the petition must fail on certains preliminary grounds. An appeal was preferred from that decision and the Court of appeal held that it was competent to the Court to issue and order under Section 45 if it was found that the reference made to the Industrial Court was not a proper reference. Therefore the petition again went back to Tondolkar J. to consider it on merits who finally dismissed it. It is from that order of dismissal that this appeal is preferred.
2. The one short point that has been urged by Mr. Amin on behalf of the petitioners is that Government wore not competent to refer the dispute between the petitioners and their employees to the Industrial Court as they purported to do. It is urged by Mr. Amin that Government cannot exercise its powers under. Section 73, to refer a dispute to the Industrial Court unless proceedings have been taken under Section 42 (2), Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946. The Act, as the preamble states, is put on the statute book for the regulation of the relations of employers and employees in certain matters, to consolidate and amend the law relating to the settlement of industrial disputes and to provide for certain other purposes. Section 42 (2) requires an employee desiring a change in respect of an industrial matter which is not specified in Schedule I or III to give a notice in the prescribed form to the employer through the representative of the employees who shall forward a copy of the notice to the Chief Conciliator for the industry concerned for the local area, the Registrar, the Labour Officer and such other person as may be prescribed. "Industrial matter" is defined, and that means any matter relating to employment, work, wages, hours of work, privileges, rights or duties of employers or employees, or the mode, terms and conditions of employment and includes--(a) all matters pertaining to the relationship between employees and employers, or to the dismissal or non-employment of any person; (b) all matters pertaining to the demarcation of functions of any employees or class of employees. Then there are two other Sub-clauses : (c) All matters pertaining to any right or claim under or in respect of or concerning a registered agreement or a submission, settlement or award made under this Act; (d) all questions of what is fair and right in relation to any industrial matter having regard to the interest of the person immediately concerned and of the community as a whole. "Industrial dispute" is defined, and it means any dispute or difference between an employer and employee or between employers and employees or between employees and employees and which is connected with any industrial matter. In this case the dispute between the employer and employee was in relation to a matter which was covered by item 9 of Schedule II and that is "wages including the period and mode of payment." Therefore it is perfectly true that if an employee desired a change in respect of his wages, he would have to give a notice under Section 42 (2). The effect of giving the notice would be to commence conciliation proceedings which are provided for under the Act, because Section 42 (2) itself provides that the notice submitted by the employee has to be forwarded to the Conciliator. The Act then provides for conciliation proceedings, and if the conciliation proceedings end in a settlement, that settlement has to be registered in the manner provided under Section 68. Chapter 11 provides for arbitration and under Section 66, an employer and an employee may agree to submit their differences to a named arbitrator. They may also agree to submit the arbitration to a Labour Court or the Industrial Court. Then we come to Se
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.