Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
S. Datta, R. N. Dutt
SHELLAC INDUSTRIES LTD. - Appellant
Versus
THEIR WORKMEN (REPRESENTED BY SHELLAC INDUSTRYs WORKERS UNION) - Respondent
Civil Rule 3729 Of 1961
Decided On : DECEMBER 16, 1964
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES - REFERENCE - ABOLITION OF TRIBUNAL - JURISDICTION - INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - SECTION 7, 8, 10, 15, 17, 21, 33B - GENERAL CLAUSES ACT, 1897 - SECTION 21.
Fact of the Case:
A dispute between workers and a company was referred to the First Labour Court for adjudication. The company closed its factory and paid compensation to the workers. The company leased out its factory to another company. The Trade Union of the company filed its statement before the First Labour Court. The First Labour Court was abolished and the Government referred the same dispute to the 7th Industrial Tribunal.
Finding of the Court:
The State Government was incompetent to abolish the First Tribunal and thereafter refer the same dispute to the 7th tribunal. The reference of the very same dispute under Section 10 (1) (d) to the 7th Industrial Tribunal was clearly illegal and without jurisdiction. The Award of the 7th Industrial Tribunal is without jurisdiction and void.
Issues: Whether the State Government can abolish an Industrial Tribunal constituted by it under Section 7, after the State had referred an industrial dispute under Section 10 (1) (d) to the Tribunal for its decision.
Ratio Decidendi: The Industrial Tribunal continues to exist till an award is made subject to the possibility of intervention on the grounds mentioned in Sections 8 and 33b and consequently there is no express power in the State Government to abolish a tribunal when a dispute is referred to it under Section 10 (1) (d) fill it gives an award. The scheme of the Act with particular reference to Section 10 has been considered elaborately by the Supreme Court in the case of Minerva Mills Ltd. Bangalore v. Workers of the Minerva Mills. There, it was held, that Section 21 of the General Clauses Act could not be taken recourse to in the context of the Act. Therefore, though the case of D. N. Ganguly does not deal with the precise point before us namely the right of the State Government to invoke Section 21 of the General Clauses Act and cancel or supersede the order of constitution of a tribunal made under Section 7, the pronouncement made therein do generally support the view that the Act is self-contained and the scheme leaves no room for the application of Section 21 of the General Clauses Act.
Final Decision: The Rule is made absolute. There will be no order as to costs.
( 1 ) THIS is a Rule directed against the award of the 7th Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal arising out of a dispute between the workers of the petitioner company represented by its Union, the Shellac Industries Workers' Union and the said company M/s Shellac Industries Ltd.
( 2 ) THERE was a dispute between the workers and the company which was settled through the intervention of the Labour Department. Government of West Bengal. The terms of settlement are recorded in a memorandum dated the 14th October 1958. The terms of settlement did not work out satisfactorily. On the 21st March, 1939 the company closed dowry its factory by declaring a lock-out.
( 3 ) ON the 16th April, 1959, the Government of West Bengal, by its Labour Department Order No. 1479/1r-1r/11l-405/58 dated the 16th April, 1959, referred the following issue as a dispute for adjudication to the First Labour Court. Government of West Bengal: "what relief, if any, the workmen are entitled to for the lock-out period from 21-3-59".
( 4 ) THEREAFTER, the company closed the workings of the factory permanently by notices dated the 24th April, 1959 and paid compensation to the workers. On the 3rd July, 1959 the company leased out its factory to M/s. Ramkuma Kejriwala.
( 5 ) THE Trade Union of the company filed its statement before the said First Labour Court On the 21st June, 1960 when the reference was pending before the First Industrial Tribunal, the State of West Bengal constituted the 7th Indus trial Tribunal under notification No. 3115-1r/1r/3a-6/59.
( 6 ) ON the 11th July, 1950 the said First Industrial Labour Court constituted on the 5th April, 1957 was abolished by notification No. 3508-LR/1r/3a-6/59.
( 7 ) ON the 19th July, 1960 the Government ot West Bengal. Labour Department issued a notification wherein they stated inter alia that an industrial dispute exists, that the dispute was referred to the First Labour Court for adjudication that the First Labour Court was replaced by the 7th Industrial Tribunal constituted under the notification dated 21st June. 1960 that the First Industrial Tribunal was abolished by a notification dated 11th July, 1960 and then recited as follows:"now therefore, in exereise of the power con ierred by Section 10 (1) Sub-clause (4) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (XIV of 1947 ). The Government is pleased to refer to the 7th Industrial Tribunal constituted under notification No 3115. 1r/1r/3a-6/59 dated 21-6-60 the proceeding of the industrial disputes between the said company and their workmen relating to the matters specified in the schedule below foi adjudication in supersession of the orders contained in Order No. 1479/1r/11l-4 and 5/58 dated 16-4-59 referring the said dispute to the First Labour Court. The said 7th Industrial Tribunal shall for this purpose meet at such places and on such dates as it may direct. Schedule 1. What relief, if any, the workmen are entitled to for the lock-out period from 21-3-59".
( 8 ) THEREAFTER op the 20th day of July, 1961, the 7th Industrial Tribunal gave an award in favour of the workers. The company being aggrieved by the said order made the application under Article 227 of the Constitution.
( 9 ) MR. Sen, learned Advocate for the applicant company submitted that the State was not competent to supersede the prior order of reference dated the 16th day of April, 1959 to the First Labour Court and consequently the reference under Section 10 (1) (d) of the very same dispute to the 7th Industrial Tribunal was illegal and without jurisdiction. In this connection, he strongly relied upon the case of the State of Bihar v. D. N. Ganguly.
( 10 ) AT the outset, it may be noticed that the notification dated the 11th day of July, 1960, was not made under Section 33b which enables the State Government to withdraw a pending proceeding from one Industrial Tribunal and transfer the same to another Industrial Tribunal for disposal but was made under Section 10 (1) Sub-clause (4) on the f
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
