Back
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
SHAH, J.
G. Claridge and Co. Ltd.
Versus
Industrial Tribunal
O. C. J. Misc. No. 385 of 1950
Decided On : 05-02-1951
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES - HOURS OF WORK AND PAYMENT FOR OVERTIME - JURISDICTION OF INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CLARIFICATION OF AWARD - RULE-MAKING POWER OF GOVERNMENT - INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947, SS. 7, 10, 11, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 38 - INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES (BOMBAY) RULES, 1947, R. 20A.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913, challenged the award of the Industrial Tribunal constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, insofar as it related to hours of work and payment for overtime. The dispute was referred to the Tribunal by the Government of Bombay under S. 10(1) of the Act. The Tribunal, in its award, directed the petitioners to adjust payment of wages on the basis of a 42-hour week and payment for overtime work also on that basis. The petitioners contended that there was no dispute between them and their workmen regarding hours of work or payment for overtime, and that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to make such directions. The Government of Bombay, acting under R. 20a of the Industrial Disputes (Bombay) Rules, 1947, made a reference to the Tribunal for clarification of its award with regard to hours of work and payment for overtime. The Tribunal, in its clarification award, provided for hours of work and payment for overtime. The petitioners challenged the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to make the clarification award, contending that the Tribunal had become functus officio after making its original award.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to make the original award insofar as it related to hours of work and payment for overtime. The Court reasoned that the dispute referred to the Tribunal included the issue of wages, which necessarily involved determining the period of work for which the wages were to be paid. The Court also held that the Tribunal did not become functus officio after making its original award and that the Government of Bombay had the authority to make a reference for clarification of the award under R. 20a of the Industrial Disputes (Bombay) Rules, 1947. The Court further held that R. 20a was not ultra vires the Government's rule-making power under S. 38 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Issues: 1. Whether the Industrial Tribunal had jurisdiction to make the original award insofar as it related to hours of work and payment for overtime. 2. Whether the Tribunal became functus officio after making its original award. 3. Whether the Government of Bombay had the authority to make a reference for clarification of the award under R. 20a of the Industrial Disputes (Bombay) Rules, 1947. 4. Whether R. 20a was ultra vires the Government's rule-making power under S. 38 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The dispute referred to the Tribunal included the issue of wages, which necessarily involved determining the period of work for which the wages were to be paid. Therefore, the Tribunal had jurisdiction to make the original award insofar as it related to hours of work and payment for overtime. 2. The Tribunal did not become functus officio after making its original award because the Act did not provide for the Tribunal to become functus officio after making an award. 3. The Government of Bombay had the authority to make a reference for clarification of the award under R. 20a of the Industrial Disputes (Bombay) Rules, 1947, because the rule was not ultra vires the Government's rule-making power under S. 38 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 4. R. 20a was not ultra vires the Government's rule-making power under S. 38 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, because the rule was for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of the Act.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed with costs.
Order. - This is a petition filed by G. Claridge and Co., Ltd., Bombay for the issue of a writ of certiorari against the Industrial Tribunal appointed by the State of Bombay under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, XIV [14] of 1947, and against the State of Bombay and two employees of the petitioners who were impleaded on behalf of themselves and all other persons interested in deriving benefit under awards dated September 28, 1949, and September 29, 1950, made by the Industrial Tribunal. The petitioners have prayed that this Court do call for records and proceedings of the Industrial Tribunal and do quash the orders and awards dated September 28, 1949, and September 29, 1950, in so far as they relate to hours of work and payment for overtime. Relevant averments made in the petition may be shortly stated.
2. The petitioners are a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913, having their registered office in Bombay. The Government of Bombay by their order of reference dated June 11, 1948, made under S. 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred all disputes existing between ten newspapers and printing presses mentioned in the schedule to the order (including the petitioners), and their workmen, regarding the matters specified in annexture A to the order of reference to the adjudication of the Industrial Tribunal consisting of Mr. Salim M. Merchant. One of the matters referred to was demand No. 3 relating to "wages". On the reference coming on for hearing before the Industrial Tribunal, an award was made on September 28, 1949, which was published in the Bombay Government Gazette, Extraordinary on October 13, 1949. It was submitted that in adjudicating the dispute relating to the subject matter of the demand relating to wages, the Industrial Tribunal provided for a wage scale and purported to declare that wage-scale on the basis of a 42 hours week, whereas the petitioners had always worked for 45 hours a week. It was submitted that there was no dispute between the petitioners and their workmen at any material time as to the number of hours of work, nor as to the payment for overtime, and no demand had been made by the petitioners or by their workmen relating to either of those matters. The Industrial Tribunal had by paragraph 24 of the award directed the petitioners to adjust payment of wages on the basis of a 42 hours week and payment for overtime work also on that basis. Inasmuch as no industrial dispute had been raised between the petitioners and their workmen with regard to the hours of work and with regard to payment for overtime and that no reference had been made to the Industrial Tribunal in that behalf, the petitioners submitted that the award in so far as it dealt with the hours of work and with the payment for overtime was ultra vires. It was further stated that the Government of Bombay purporting to act under R. 20a of the Industrial Disputes (Bombay) Rules, 1947, made a reference to the Industrial Tribunal for clarification of its award with regard to hours of work, and the Industrial Tribunal purporting to act in pursuance of that reference made a further order on September 29, 1950, providing for hours of work and payment for overtime. That direction dated September 29, 1950, was published by the Government of Bombay in a supplementary award in the Bombay Government Gazette Extraordinary on October 2, 1950. The petitioners submitted that the Industrial Tribunal became functus officio in the matter of the reference on the publication of the award on October 13, 1949, and the reference under R. 20a to the Industrial Tribunal and the further direction of the Tribunal were ultra vires and were accordingly a nullity. Feeling aggrieved by the action of the Industrial Tribunal in dealing with the hours of work and with payment for overtime and in passing orders and in issuing directions touching those matters, the petitioners filed this petition for the issue of a writ of certi
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
