Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
HARRIES,BANERJEE, JJ.
Municipal Commissioner of the Budge, Budge Municipality
Versus
P. R. Mukherjee
Civil Rule No. 563 of 1950
Decided On : 01-06-1950
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT - APPLICABILITY TO MUNICIPALITIES - EMPLOYEES OF MUNICIPALITIES AS WORKMEN - INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE - DEFINITION - INTERPRETATION - POWERS OF MUNICIPALITIES - LEGISLATIVE COMPETENCE OF CENTRAL AND PROVINCIAL LEGISLATURES - PITH AND SUBSTANCE DOCTRINE - VALIDITY OF INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT - MERITS OF AWARD - INTERFERENCE BY HIGH COURT UNDER ART. 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION.
Fact of the Case:
A dispute arose between the employees of the Budge Badge Municipality and the Commissioners of the Municipality. The employees demanded an increase in pay, and the Municipality sanctioned certain increments. Two employees, P.C. Mitter and Phanindra Nath Ghose, were actively involved in the affairs of the Union representing the employees. They were suspended and later dismissed. The Labour Commissioner intervened and called for a conference, but the Municipality dismissed the employees before the conference could be held. The Trades Union representing the workmen applied for the setting up of an Industrial Tribunal to inquire into the dispute, and an adjudicator was appointed. The adjudicator made an award directing the municipality to reinstate the two dismissed employees. The Government made an order declaring the award to be binding.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the Industrial Disputes Act could apply to disputes between municipalities and their employees. The definition of "industrial dispute" in the Act was wide enough to cover such disputes, and the term "workman" included persons employed in any industry, which included any undertaking or service of workmen. Municipalities carried on undertakings or series of undertakings and provided amenities for citizens, and their employees were therefore workmen. The Central Government was competent to legislate on labour disputes, even if they did not arise in industry as ordinarily understood. The Industrial Disputes Act was not ultra vires, even though it trespassed to some extent on a Provincial subject, namely, the powers of a municipality. The pith and substance of the Act was industrial and labour disputes, and the trespass was merely incidental. The award of the adjudicator was not bad on the merits. The adjudicator was entitled to order the reinstatement of the dismissed employees if he believed that it was the best way to secure future peace in the industry.
Issues: 1. Whether the Industrial Disputes Act could apply to disputes between municipalities and their employees. 2. Whether the Industrial Disputes Act was ultra vires the Central Government. 3. Whether the award of the adjudicator was bad on the merits.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The definition of "industrial dispute" in the Industrial Disputes Act was wide enough to cover disputes between municipalities and their employees. The term "workman" included persons employed in any industry, which included any undertaking or service of workmen. Municipalities carried on undertakings or series of undertakings and provided amenities for citizens, and their employees were therefore workmen. 2. The Central Government was competent to legislate on labour disputes, even if they did not arise in industry as ordinarily understood. The Industrial Disputes Act was not ultra vires, even though it trespassed to some extent on a Provincial subject, namely, the powers of a municipality. The pith and substance of the Act was industrial and labour disputes, and the trespass was merely incidental. 3. The award of the adjudicator was not bad on the merits. The adjudicator was entitled to order the reinstatement of the dismissed employees if he believed that it was the best way to secure future peace in the industry.
Final Decision: Both the petitions failed. The petition for a writ of certiorari was dismissed with costs, and so was the petition filed under Art. 227 of the Constitution. The interim injunction was dissolved. The petitioners were ordered to pay the costs of the State as well as of the Union.
HARRIES, C.J. :- These are two Rules which have been issued in connection with an award made by an Industrial Tribunal. An application was made for the issue of a writ of certiorari or prohibition on the adjudicator concerning an award which he had made. In the application it was prayed that a writ of certiorari should issue for removing the proceedings to this Court and quashing the same. In the alternative it was prayed that an order, restraining the adjudicator from giving effect to the said award of from taking any steps in pursuance thereof, should be made.
2. Another application was made for a Rule to issue under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India and in that application similar prayers were made.
3. The application for a writ of certiorari was heard by Bachawat, J. sitting on the original side. He had jurisdiction to deal with that matter, but he had no jurisdiction to deal with the application made under Art. 227 of the Constitution. He therefore referred both the matters to me and I directed that both the matters should be heard by this Bench. They have accordingly been heard together.
4. The matters arise out of a dispute between the employees of the Budge Badge Municipality and the Commissioners of the Municipality. It appears that on 12th May 1948, a so called charter of demands was submitted by the Trades Union representing the employees of the municipality. An increase of pay was demanded and on 23rd September 1948 certain increments of pay were sanctioned by the Municipality with effect from the month of August, 1948.
5. It seems that there were two Unions representing the interests of the employees and the Chairman of the municipality was the President of one of these Unions. The two Unions amalgamated and it is said that this displeased the Chairman of the Municipality and he severed all connection with the Union with which he was concerned.
6. On 1st July 1949, the conservancy menials employed by the Municipality went on strike. But on the intervention of the Sub-divisional Officer that strike was settled on 7th July 1949.
7. Two employees, P.C. Mitter Head Clerk, and Phanindra Nath Ghose were actively concerned in the affairs of the Union which had been formed by the amalgamation of the two previous Unions and it is suggested that these two employees incurred the displeasure of the authorities controlling the Municipality. On 13th July 1949, both these employees were suspended and a charge sheet was drawn up against them. On 30th July 1949 the Labour Commissioner intervened and called a conference for 5th August 1949. Apparently this conference could not be held and was adjourned until 12th August 1949. In the meantime the Commissioners of the Municipality met and on 6th August 1949 the two employees, P.C., Mitter and Phanindra Nath Ghose were dismissed. On 8th August 1949, the Labour Commissioner again wrote to the Municipality suggesting a conference on 12th August and asked that the status quo should be maintained. However, as I have said, the two employees had been dismissed by that time. It seems that representations were made to Government concerning these dismissals, but no action was taken. Eventually the Trades Union representing the workmen applied for the setting up of an Industrial Tribunal to enquire into the dispute and in due course an adjudicator was appointed to consider the matter under the Industrial Disputes Act. On 13th February 1950, he made an award and in that award he directed the municipality to reinstate the two dismissed employees Mitter and Ghose. On 9th March 1950, the Government made an order under S. 15(2) of the Act declaring the award to be binding and that order was published in the Gazette of that date.
8. Dr. Naresh Sen Gupta who has appeared on behalf of the petitioners, the Municipality of Badge Budge, has contended in the first place that the Industrial Disputes Act could have no application to any dispute between the Municipality and its employees and therefore t
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
