Back
High Court Of Calcutta
S. B. SINHA, M. H. S. ANSARI, D. P. KUNDU
SAMPAT.B.G. - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
M. F. A. 862 Of 1997
Decided On : 10/14/1999
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT - SECTION 15 (2) (B) - INTERIM RELIEF - GRANT OF INTERIM RELIEF - CONDITIONS - REFUND OF INTERIM RELIEF - CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SECTION 15 (2) (B) - CLASSIFICATION OF WORKMEN - ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - SECTION 23 OF THE INDIAN CONTRACT ACT.
Fact of the Case:
In several cases, the services of employees had been terminated by their employers, leading to industrial disputes and references for interim relief under Section 15 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The issue of whether the grant of interim relief was mandatory or discretionary, the scope of the Tribunal's discretion, and the conditions for granting interim relief were raised.
Finding of the Court:
1. The Tribunal has the incidental power to grant interim relief under Section 10 (4) of the Act, but Section 15 (2) (b) was added to provide a statutory basis for granting interim relief within a specific timeframe. 2. The word "admissible" in Section 15 (2) (b) does not mean "relevant" as per the definition in the Indian Evidence Act but rather refers to relief that is permissible in law and fact. 3. The Tribunal has the discretion to determine the quantum of interim relief based on the facts and circumstances of each case and the nature of the dispute. 4. A prima facie case is not established solely by the Government's reference of the dispute; the Tribunal must consider the merits of the respective parties' cases and the nature of the dispute. 5. Interim relief is not refundable as it is a final and binding order, and the proviso to Section 15 (2) (b) incorporates the provisions of the West Bengal Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1969, which prohibits the refund of subsistence allowance. 6. Section 15 (2) (b) is not unconstitutional as it does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution or Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, as it does not confer unguided and unfettered power upon the employer.
Issues: 1. Whether the grant of interim relief under Section 15 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act is mandatory or discretionary. 2. What is the scope of the Tribunal's discretion in granting interim relief? 3. What are the conditions for granting interim relief? 4. Whether the Tribunal can direct the parties to refund the amount granted under Section 15 (2) (b). 5. Whether Section 15 (2) (b) is unconstitutional.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Tribunal has the discretion to determine the quantum of interim relief based on the facts and circumstances of each case and the nature of the dispute. 2. A prima facie case is not established solely by the Government's reference of the dispute; the Tribunal must consider the merits of the respective parties' cases and the nature of the dispute. 3. Interim relief is not refundable as it is a final and binding order, and the proviso to Section 15 (2) (b) incorporates the provisions of the West Bengal Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1969, which prohibits the refund of subsistence allowance. 4. Section 15 (2) (b) is not unconstitutional as it does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution or Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, as it does not confer unguided and unfettered power upon the employer.
Final Decision: The references made to the Court were answered accordingly, and the matters were directed to be placed before the appropriate Bench for determination on merit.
( 1 ) REFERENCE to this Full Bench has been made by three different orders in this matter, as the correctness of the Division Bench decision of this Court in Ganges Printing Ink factory Employees Industrial Co-operative society Ltd. and another v. The 7th industrial Tribunal and others, 91 CWN 480, was doubted in Webel Nicco Electronics Ltd. v. Mrs. Anima Roy, (1997-II-LLJ-80) (Cal-db), which view has been reiterated by one of us D. P KUNDU, J. in B. G. Sampat (Babulal gordhandas Sampat) v. The State of West bengal and others. 1991 (1) CLJ 338.
( 2 ) KEEPING in view the said references, one of us in CESC Ltd. v. State of West Bengal, also directed that the matter be heard by a larger Bench and in particular in view of the fact that therein inter alia, the vires of Section 15 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as amended by the State of West Bengal, had been questioned.
( 3 ) AS the questions raised before us are pure questions of law and as this Bench has been called upon to answer the reference only, it is not necessary to state the fact of the matter in detail. Suffice it to point out that in all the aforementioned cases, the services of the employees had been terminated by their employers whereafter industrial disputes were raised. In the said references prayers had been made for grant of interim relief in terms of Section 15 (2) (b) of the Act which had been allowed in the case of Webel Nicco electronics Ltd. v. Mrs. Anima Roy and; others (supra) and C. E. S. C. Ltd. v. State of w. B. and others, whereas, the same has been refused in the case of B. G. Sampat (Babulal gordhandas Sampat) v. The State of W. B. supra. In B. G. Sampat's case, the Court refused to allow the prayer made by the workmen inter alia, on the ground that the state of West Bengal had no jurisdiction to make a reference under Section 10-C of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as the entire cause of action had arisen outside its jurisdiction.
( 4 ) SECTION 15 (2) (b) of the Industrial disputes Act reads thus :"15 (2 ). Where an industrial dispute has been referred to a Labour Court or Tribunal, it shall (b) upon hearing the parties to the dispute determine within a period of 60 days from the date of reference under sub-section (1)of Section 10 or within such shorter period as specified in the order of reference under sub-section (1) of Section 10 the quantum of interim relief admissible, if any; provided that the quantum of interim relief relating to discharge, dismissal, i retrenchment or termination of service of workman shall be equivalent to subsistence allowance as may be admissible under the west Bengal Payment of Subsistence allowance Act, 1969. "
( 5 ) THE question that an Industrial Tribunal as also a Labour Court has the incidental power to grant interim relief, in an industrial proceedings in exercise of its power under section 10 (4) of the Industrial Disputes Act is no longer res-integra in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Hotel Imperial v. Hotel Imperial Workers Union, (supra)
( 6 ) ALTHOUGH, such a power existed, the state of West Bengal inserted the aforementioned provision keeping in view the law's delay as would appear from the statements of objects and reasons thereof. The vires of the said provision has inter alia been questioned on the ground that as discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination had been classified together and some amount of subsistence allowance has to be granted despite existence of different fact situations obtaining in different cases.
( 7 ) MR. Pal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner in W. P. No. 1013 of 1999 inter alia, submitted that the said provision is unconstitutional as by reason thereof no discretion has been conferred upon the Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court, as the case may be, in the matter of grant of interim relief in favour of the workmen. Strong reliance in this connection has been placed on Delhi Transport Corpn. v.
AI
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
