SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1953 Supreme(Pat) 119

PATNA HIGH COURT
V.Ramaswami and Sinha JJ.
Vinaya Nath Narain Sinha
Versus
Bihar Journals Ltd.And Ors.
Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 135 of 1953 ;
Decided On : AUGUST 06, 1953

The duty imposed by Sec.33 of the Industrial Disputes Act is a duty owed to the public and not to the particular employee prejudicially affected.

Headnote:

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT - SECTION 33 - WORKMAN - DEFINITION - EDITORIAL STAFF OF NEWSPAPER - NOT WORKMEN - NO RIGHT OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF SECTION 33.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioner No. 1, Sri Vinaya Nath Narain Sinha, is a senior Assistant Editor of the "Searchlight", a newspaper printed and published at Patna. He alleges that on 30-3-1953, Sri Parasnath Sinha, Managing Director of the Bihar Journals Ltd., ordered his transfer to Calcutta to work in the capacity of the correspondent of the newspaper. Petitioner No. 1 alleges that he had been elected as the Vice President of the Bihar Journalists Union, and the respondents were opposed to his inking any part in the activities of that particular trade union. Petitioner no. 1 alleges that the order of his transfer to Calcutta was an act of victimisation on the part of the respondents.

Finding of the Court:

The duty imposed by Sec.33 on the employer is certainly not more important than the duty owed by the employer under Sec.24. In my opinion, the duty imposed by Sec.33 is a duty owed not to the employees concerned but a duty owed to the public which can be solely enforced by criminal prosecution under Sec.31.

Issues: Whether Sec.33, Industrial Disputes Act applies to this case.

Ratio Decidendi: The duty imposed on the employer under Sec.33 is a duty not owed to the particular employee prejudicially affected, but it is a duty owed to the public. To put it differently, the employees affected have no right of action for a breach of the statutory obligation imposed by Sec.33. The remedy for breach of Sec.33 is the special penalty provided in Section 31 of the Act, and the statutory obligation can be enforced only by that special penalty.

Final Decision: The application for issue of a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution must fail and should be dismissed with costs.

Judgment

Ramaswami, J.

1. In this case, the petitioners have obtained a rule calling upon the respondents to show cause why a writ of mandamus should not be issued for quashing the order of the respondent No. 2 dated 7-1-1953, transferring petitioner No. 1 Sri Vinaya Nath Narain Sinha to Calcutta to work as a correspondent of the "Searchlight". Cause was shown by Mr. Baldeva Sahay on behalf of the respondents.

2. Petitioner No. 1, Sri Vinaya Nath, Narain Sinha, is a senior Assistant Editor of the "Searchlight", a newspaper printed and published at Patna. He alleges that on 30-3-1953, Sri Parasnath Sinha, Managing Director of the Bihar Journals Ltd., ordered his transfer to Calcutta to work in the capacity of the correspondent of the newspaper. The order was that petitioner No. 1 should join at Calcutta on 6-4-1953, but subsequently the date of joining was extended up to 13-4-1953.

Petitioner No. 1 alleges that he had been elected as the Vice President of the Bihar Journalists Union, and the respondents were opposed to his inking any part in the activities of that particular trade union. Petitioner no. 1 alleges that the order of his transfer to Calcutta was an act of victimisation on the part of the respondents. On 1-1-1953, petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 2, Sri Shri Krishna Datta Bhatt, who is the Secretary of the Bihar Journalists Union, applied to the Labour Commissioner of Patna seeking his intervention in the matter. On 3-4-1953, Sri R.N. Sharma, Conciliation Officer and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, started conciliation proceedings. He wrote to the respondents asking them to stay the order transferring petitioner No. 1 to Calcutta and fixed 8-4-1953 for hearing the matter.

In reply to the letter of the Conciliation Officer, the respondents asserted that the Conciliation Officer had no jurisdiction to start proceedings. The contention of the respondents was that there was no industrial dispute, and petitioner No. 1 Sri Vinaya Nath Narsin Sinha was not a workman within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, On 7-4-1953, respondent No. 2 Sri Parasnath Singh made a peremptory order that the petitioner No. 1 should comply with his previous order dated 30-3-1953 and join the post of the correspondent at Calcutta. The petitioners assert that in making this order the opposite party committed a breach of Sec.33 of the Industrial Disputes Act which states that "during the pendency of any conciliation proceedings before a Tribunal in respect of any industrial dispute, no employer shall alter, to the prejudice of the workmen concerned in such dispute, the conditions of service applicable to them immediately before the commencement of such proceedings".

The petitioners, therefore, pray that a writ in the nature of mandamus should be issued to the respondents for quashing the order of transfer made on 30-3-1953 and reiterated on 3-1-1953.

3. In their counter-affidavit the respondents submit that the order of transfer was made for the sake of administrative convenience and there was no question of any victimisation of the petitioner. The respondents further object that neither the labour Commissioner nor the Conciliation Officer had any jurisdiction to interfere in the dispute. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner is neither a manual workman nor a member of the clerical staff. He is, on the contrary, the senior Assistant Editor of the newspaper and his case fell outside the purview of the Industrial Disputes Act. The respondents contend that Sec.33 of the Industrial Disputes Act has no application to the case.

4. The first question in this case is, therefore, whether Sec.33, Industrial Disputes Act ap-plies to this case. Sec.33 states:

"During the pendency of any conciliation proceedings or proceedings before a Tribunal in respect of any industrial dispute, no employer shall--(a) alter, to the prejudice of the workmen concerned in such dispute, the conditions of service applicable to them immediately b












































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top