Back
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
CHAGLA,SHAH, JJ.
Narendra Kumar Sen
Versus
All India Industrial Disputes (Labour Appllate) Tribunal
O.C.J. Misc. Acpln. No.215 of 1952
Decided On : 24-09-1952
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT - JURISDICTION OF LABOUR TRIBUNAL - DISPUTE REGARDING TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT OF NON-WORKMEN - WHETHER INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE - INTERPRETATION OF "ANY PERSON" IN DEFINITION OF INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE - INTEREST OF WORKMEN IN DISPUTE - SCOPE OF ADJUDICATION BY TRIBUNAL.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, employees of the second respondent company, challenged two decisions of the Labour Appellate Tribunal on the ground that they had failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in the Tribunal under the law. The dispute related to the scales of pay and bonus of employees who were not workmen within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Labour Tribunal had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the question of pay scales and the right to bonus of employees of the second respondent company who were not workmen within the meaning of the Act. The Court further held that the Appellate Tribunal had failed to exercise its jurisdiction to determine whether in fact divisional heads and foremen were or were not workmen within the meaning of the Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the Labour Tribunal had jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the question of pay scales and the right to bonus of employees of the second respondent company who were not workmen within the meaning of the Act. 2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal had failed to exercise its jurisdiction to determine whether in fact divisional heads and foremen were or were not workmen within the meaning of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The definition of "industrial dispute" in the Industrial Disputes Act includes any dispute or difference between employers and employers, or between employers and workmen, or between workmen and workmen, which is connected with the employment or non-employment or the terms of employment or with the conditions of labour, of any person. 2. The expression "any person" in the definition of "industrial dispute" cannot be construed without any limitation or qualification. It must be read in the light of the whole definition of "industrial dispute" given in S.2(k). 3. A dispute contemplated by S.2 (k) is a controversy in which the workman is directly and substantially interested. It must also be a grievance felt by the workman which the employer is in a position to remedy or set right. 4. The Act confers important rights upon workmen and also imposes serious liabilities upon employers. The limitation placed upon the employer is not with regard to all his employees. The limitation is confined to a limited class of his employees, and that limited class is constituted by the expression "workman" used in the Act. 5. The Appellate Tribunal has the jurisdiction to assess and appreciate the evidence led in the lower Court or tribunal and come to its own decision on the question of fact. It cannot adopt the decision of some other authority or be solely guided by what the lower tribunal had done.
Final Decision: The Court quashed the two orders passed by the Appellate Tribunal.
CHAGLA, C.J. :- This is a petition challenging two decisions of the Labour Appellate Tribunal on the ground that they had failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in the Tribunal under the law. Petitioners Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 are the employees of the second respondent company, and petitioner No.3 was up to October 1951 also in the employment- of the second respondent company. It appears that some of the employees of the Ford Motor Co. have formed a union to protect their interests, and the petition is filed by the five petitioners on behalf of themselves and all other workmen employed by the second respondent company. This union raised an industrial dispute in 1946. It was referred to the Industrial Tribunal and the Tribunal which consisted of Mr. Kamerkar gave its award on 5-5-1948, and the award lasted till 16-5-1949. There was another dispute between the workmen of the Ford Motor Co. and the company again in September 1949 and it was referred to the Industrial Tribunal by Government under S.10(ii) of the Industrial Disputes Act on 29-9-1949, and the award in this dispute was given on 20-1-1951. There was an appeal from this award and the Appellate Tribunal confirmed the award on 3-7-1951. There was a third dispute which was referred to the Industrial Tribunal by Government on 16-8-1950. In this dispute the award was given on 25-10-1951. An appeal was preferred from this award and the Appellate Court gave its decision on 29-5-1952.
2. The main question which arises on this petition is whether the Labour Tribunal has the jurisdiction to adjudicate with regard to the scales of pay and the right of bonus of employees of the second respondent company who are not workmen of the company within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act. In other words, the question for our consideration is whether it is competent to the workmen of the second respondent company to raise a dispute with regard to payment of wages and bonus, not to themselves, but to other employees of the company, and having raised such a dispute whether it is competent to the Labour Tribunal to adjudicate upon such a dispute. When the matter was before Mr. Kamerkar as the Industrial Tribunal, he held that foremen and divisional heads of the second respondent company did not fall in the category of workmen as defined by the Act. When the second dispute with regard to this company was referred to Mr. Bakhle, the demands made by the workmen included a demand for fixing the scales of pay for foremen and divisional heads, and Mr. Bakhle in his award held that foremen and divisional heads belonged to the supervisory category and would not be within the scope of his award. When an appeal was preferred to the Appellate Tribunal from this award, the Appellate Tribunal upheld the decision of the lower Tribunal on the ground that Mr. Kamerkar had taken the same view with regard to the status of divisional heads and foremen by his award dated 5-5-1948, and it was not advisable that this matter should be reviewed or revised within such a short time, and when the award was made on 5-10-1951, one of the matters which the workmen wanted the Tribunal to adjudicate upon was the question of bonus and they put forward the claims for bonus not only on behalf of workmen but also on behalf of foremen and divisional heads. The Industrial Tribunal excluded divisional heads and foremen from the benefit of the award with regard to bonus which was conferred upon other workmen, .and when the matter went to the Appellate Tribunal, the Appellate Tribunal upheld the decision of the Industrial Tribunal and expressed the opinion that it had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the claims of foremen and divisional heads.
3. The contention of Mr. Desai is that it was competent to the workmen of the second respondent company even as defined by the Act to raise a dispute with regard to the claims of foremen and divisional heads, and that once a dispute was raised, it was incumbent upon the Labour Tribu
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
