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

1964 Supreme(Cal) 138

HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
B. N. Banerjee
DINO BANDHU NAYAK - Appellant
Versus
D. MITRA - Respondent
Matter 142  Of  1963
Decided On : JUNE 18, 1964

A party to an industrial dispute is bound by the award made in the dispute, even if the party is a benamidar for another person.

Headnote:

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - SECTION 18(3)(A) - AWARD - INTERPRETATION - BENAMIDAR - PROSECUTION UNDER SECTION 29 - WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND PROHIBITION - SCOPE.

Fact of the Case:

A Labour Officer wrote a letter to the petitioner, threatening prosecution under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for non-implementation of an award made in an industrial dispute between Messrs. Atal Behari Nayak and their workmen. The petitioner, who carried on business under the trade name Messrs. A. B. Trading and Co., claimed that he was not bound by the award as he was not a party to the industrial dispute.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the petitioner was not entitled to dispute the formation of the opinion by the respondents at this stage. If the petitioner is prosecuted under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act, he will be at liberty to take up the defence that the award was not binding upon him and that his business was a completely different business and had no connection with the business carried on by Jagabandhu Nayak.

Issues: Whether the petitioner was bound by the award made in the industrial dispute between Messrs. Atal Behari Nayak and their workmen.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner was not entitled to dispute the formation of the opinion by the respondents at this stage. If the petitioner is prosecuted under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act, he will be at liberty to take up the defence that the award was not binding upon him and that his business was a completely different business and had no connection with the business carried on by Jagabandhu Nayak.

Final Decision: The court discharged the rule nisi but made no order as to costs.

B. N. BANERJEE, J.

( 1 ) AN industrial dispute, between Messrs. Atal Behari Nayak (Proprietor Shri Jagabandhu Nayak) of No. 9/5c, Munshiganj Road, Kidderpore and their workmen represented by the National Union of Tea Workers, was referred by the Government of West Bengal to the 1st Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. The industrial dispute related to retrenchment of workmen. The Tribunal made an award against the employer holding that the order of retrenchment was neither valid nor justifiable excepting in the case of two named workmen. Apparently the award was not implemented and the workmen who had been retrenched were not taken back. Thereupon, on February 4, 1963, a Labour Officer to the Government of West Bengal wrote a letter, which I set out below:"to (1) M/s Atal Behari Nayak 9/5c, Munshiganj Road, calcutta-33. (2) M/s A. B. Trading and Co. 9/5b, Munshiganj Road, Calcutta-33. Dated 4-2-63. Subject--Non-implementation of award dated 25-1-62. Sir, with reference to the above I have to request you to implement the above award by reinstating the retrenched workmen concerned and to report compliance to this office within 10 days from date failing which prosecution may be launched against you under Section 29 of I. D. Act. Yours faithfully, Sd/- D. Mitra, Labour Officer, West Bengal. "

( 2 ) THE petitioner Dinobandhu Nayak says that he is the proprietor of Messrs. A. B. Trading and Co. and that his business has nothing to do with the business of Atal Behari Nayak of which the proprietor is Jagabandhu Nayak. He further says that the award was not made against him or his business and he is not bound to implement the award.

( 3 ) AGGRIEVED by the threat of prosecution, contained in the letter dated February 4, 1963 hereinbefore quoted, the petitioner moved this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution, asking, inter alia, for a Writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to withdraw or rescind the purported order dated February 4, 1963 and for a Writ of Prohibition prohibiting them from wrongly exercising their powers under Section 29 against the petitioner and obtained this Rule.

( 4 ) MR. Imam, learned advocate for the petitioner, argued a single point in support of this Rule. He contended that the reference to industrial adjudication was between Messrs. Atal Behari Nayak (Proprietor Shri Jagabandhu Nayak) and their workmen. Unless it was established that the business run by the petitioner and the business which was being run under the trade name 'messrs. Atal Behari Nayak' were one and the same business, no liability should fasten on the petitioner under the award and that the Labour Officer was wrong in threatening institution of proceedings against the petitioner under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act.

( 5 ) MR. Basack, learned Advocate for the respondents, drew my attention to certain passages in the award which went to show that the business which was being run by Jagabandhu Nayak under the trade name 'messrs. Atal Behari Nayak' was not really closed down but that the said business purposively began to function under a different trade name, namely, A. B. Trading and Co. Mr. Basak therefore, contended that the petitioner was bound by the award under Section 18 (3) (a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, being a party to the industrial dispute as a benamidar for Jagabandhu Nayak.

( 6 ) THE award requires interpretation in order to find out who were the persons who became bound by the award. If the petitioner in his trade name A. B. Trading and Co. , is really a benamidar for Jagabandhu Nayak, who was carrying on business under the trade name, 'messrs. Alal Behari Nayak', then the petitioner is also bound by the award. This question, however, cannot be determined off hand without taking evidence and on the materials which are before me in this writ petition. The respondents have read the award to mean that the petitioner, carrying on business under the trade name Messrs. A. B. Trading and

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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