The Labour Court has jurisdiction to entertain applications under Section 13A of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, to decide questions as to the application or interpretation of a standing order, but it does not have jurisdiction to grant substantive or consequential relief under Section 13A.

Headnote:
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - SECTION 13A - JURISDICTION OF LABOUR COURT - INTERPRETATION OF STANDING ORDERS - REINSTATEMENT - SUBSTANTIVE OR CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF - STANDING ORDER NO.19 - ABANDONMENT OF SERVICE - INTENTION - FICTION OF LAW.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, an association of contractors who take contracts for chipping and painting in the docks, challenged the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to entertain an application filed by the respondent, a workman, under Section 13A of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, seeking reinstatement. The respondent was injured on 26th June 1965 and was granted leave till 12th July 1965. He did not report for duty thereafter and was treated as having abandoned his services in terms of Standing Order No. 19 of the Standing Orders for Chipping and Painting Workers in the Port of Bombay.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the Labour Court had jurisdiction to entertain the application under Section 13A of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, as the notification constituting the Labour Court under Section 7(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and empowering it to deal with entry No.2 in the Second Schedule to the said Act would be a sufficient specification for disposal of applications under Section 13A. The court further held that an application under Section 13A could be maintained by a person who before the making of an application was a workman and seeks to have a question as to application or interpretation of a standing order determined in relation to the period during which he was a workman. However, the court held that the Labour Court did not have jurisdiction to grant substantive or consequential relief under Section 13A, as such relief could only be granted after determining disputed questions of fact, which was not contemplated under Section 13A. The court also held that Standing Order No.19 created a fiction of law that a workman who fails to report for work within a fortnight of the expiry of his leave or extended leave shall be deemed to have abandoned his service, and therefore, the Labour Court ought not to have gone into the question of intention and the fact of expiry abandonment.
Issues: 1. Whether the Labour Court had jurisdiction to entertain the application under Section 13A of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946? 2. Whether an application under Section 13A could be maintained by a person who before the making of an application was a workman and seeks to have a question as to application or interpretation of a standing order determined in relation to the period during which he was a workman? 3. Whether the Labour Court had jurisdiction to grant substantive or consequential relief under Section 13A? 4. Whether Standing Order No.19 created a fiction of law that a workman who fails to report for work within a fortnight of the expiry of his leave or extended leave shall be deemed to have abandoned his service?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 13A of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, empowers a Labour Court constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to decide questions as to the application or interpretation of a standing order. A notification constituting a Labour Court under Section 7(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and empowering it to deal with entry No.2 in the Second Schedule to the said Act would be a sufficient specification for disposal of applications under Section 13A. 2. An application under Section 13A can be maintained by a person who before the making of an application was a workman and seeks to have a question as to application or interpretation of a standing order determined in relation to the period during which he was a workman. 3. The Labour Court does not have jurisdiction to grant substantive or consequential relief under Section 13A, as such relief could only be granted after determining disputed questions of fact, which was not contemplated under Section 13A. 4. Standing Order No.19 creates a fiction of law that a workman who fails to report for work within a fortnight of the expiry of his leave or extended leave shall be deemed to have abandoned his service.
Final Decision: The court quashed and set aside the order of the Labour Court dated 9th November 1967, which had directed the petitioners to reinstate the respondent.

JUDGMENT - Nain, J.

1. This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 9th November 1967 passed by the Presiding officer, central Government Labor Court, Bombay, ordering the p petitioners to reinstate the respondent No.2, who was a workman employed by them.

2. The Petitioners are an Association Limited by guarantee. Contractors who take contracts for chipping and painting in the Docks are members of the petitioners Association.

3. Pursuant to the provisions of the Dock labour (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1948, the Central Government published the Unregistered Dock Workers (Regulation of jEmployment) Scheme, 1957, providing for listing by the Bombay Dock Labour , inter alia, of work,men doing the work of chipping and painting in the port. The 2nd respondent was a listed worker under the said Scheme, and as such he was issued an identity card by the Bombay Dock Labour Board , entitling him to enter the port area and to do the work that may be allocated to him through the petitioners for and on behalf of the members of of the petitioners who are listed employers under the said Scheme. The 2nd respondent is alleged to have been injured on 26th June 1965 and he was granted leave on that ground till 12th July 1965 without submitting any application for extension of leave, He was, therefore, treated by the petitioners as having abandoned his services in terms of Order No. 19 of the Standing Orders for Chipping and Painting Workers in the Port of Bombay.

4. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, the dockers union, Bombay, made a demand for his reinstatement. Efforts at conciliation failed. A request was thereafter made to the Government of India for referring a dispute as to reinstatment of 2nd respondent to a Labour Court under the provisions of S.10 (1) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act By a letter India for referring a dispute as to reinstatment of 2nd respondent to a Labour Court under the provisions of S. 10 (1) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act. By a letter dated 7th April 1966 the Government of India turned down this request, and stated that the Government of India did not consider this to be a fit case for reference to adjudication. On 12th May 1966, the 2nd respondent tiled an application No.LCB -152 of 1966 before the Central Government , Labour Court, which was then presided over by Mr. Salim Merchant , the retirement M Mr. Salim Merchant, the respondent No. 1 was appointed in his place by notification dated 24th October 1967.

5. In the application, it was urged that the 2nd respondent received injuries as a result of an accident arising of and during the course of the employment on 26th June 1965, that he was granted leave for 15, that he was granted leave for 15days but could not report for duty as he was under medical treatment, and that he reported for duty on 10th December 1965 as son as he got a certificate of fitness dated 12th November 1965. He contended that Standing Order No.19 had been wrongly applied to him and that he should be reinstated.

6. The petitioners filed a written statement in which they took up the contention that the respondent No.1 had no jurisdiction to entertain the application of the 2nd respondent under Section 13A of the Industrial Employment (Standing orders) Act 1946 on several grounds with which we shall deal later. By an order dated 9th November 1967 the respondent No.1 directed the petitioners to reinstate respondent No. 2. The present petition has been for quashing the said order.

7. Before us, the petitioners have challenged the jurisdiction of the respondent No.1 to entertain the application No.LCB -152 of 1966 filed by the 2nd respondent on the ground that the 1st respondent has no jurisdiction to entertain the same for the following reasons:-

(a) That a special notification Section 13A of the Industrial Employment (standing Orders) , Act 1946 was necessary in order to empower the presiding officer, Central Government Labour Court, Bombay (ap

Click Here to Read the rest of this document