The Industrial Disputes Act provides a special remedy for the enforcement and adjudication of special rights and obligations under the said Act, and therefore, the civil court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate or to enforce such special right claimed on behalf of the piece-rated workmen collectively.

Chittatosh Mookerjee J :– The only point in this appeal is whether or not the City Civil Court at Calcutta had any jurisdiction to entertain the application under S. 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1946 filed by M/s. Hindusthan National Glass & Industries Ltd. Mazdoor Union for setting aside the award/recommendations date 6th November, 1980 of Sri S. K. Bhattacharya, Labour Commissioner, West Bengal, regarding the remunerations of piece-rated workmen employed by the contractors of M/s Hindusthan National Glass & Industries Ltd., Rishra Hooghly.

2. On 25th July, 1979, S. N. Singh and others, described as Contractors of M/s. Hindusthan National Glass & Industries Ltd. and their workmen represented by three unions including the appellant, Hindusthan National Glass & Industries Ltd. Mazdoor Union, had signed a Memorandum of Settlement. Sri S. K. Chowdhury, Deputy Commissioner, West Bengal and Conciliation Officer as a witness had also signed the said Memorandum of Settlement. The said tripartite Memorandum of Settlement recited that the unions have demanded abolition of contract labour and their absorption as permanent workmen of Hindusthan National Glass & Industries Ltd. After negotiations it had been agreed that as the abolition of contract labour and their absorption as permanent workmen of principal company could not be admitted in conciliation, the issue of revision of wages of the contractors' labour had been taken up. We need not set out the paragraph 5 (a) (ii) which dealt with the wage benefits of daily rated/time rated workmen because the same is not relevant for the purpose of deciding the present appeal. The sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) of paragraph 5 was in the following terms :–

"The rates of piece-rated workmen will be revised upward in such a manner so that they get the benefit of (i) above. The basis of revision will be decided as early as possible. Till then the piece-rated workmen will be paid the benefit of (i) above, as an interim measure, on an ad hoc basis on the basis of attendance during a month (26 days). If, however, a workmen work less than 26 days in a month, he will be paid on a pro rata basis. For the purpose of arriving at a decision as mentioned above, the parties will co-operate with each other and will meet at bipartite level. If after two weeks of bipartite negotiation from the date of this settlement the matter is not settled it will be taken up at tripartite level by the Labour Commissioner, W.B. The Labour Commissioner after examining the present fact, circumstances and records will give his recommendations which will be finally binding on all the parties.’’

3. It is the common case that the bipartite negotiation regarding rates of wages of piece-rated workmen did not succeed and the matter was referred to Sri S. K. Bhattacharya, Labour Commissioner, West Bengal. On 6th November 1980, Sri S. K, Bhattacharya, Labour Commissioner, West Bengal purported to make his recommendations regarding remuneration of piece-rated workmen in terms of paragraph 5 (a) (ii) of the aforesaid tripartite settlement dated 25th July, 1979.

4. The appellant filed the aforesaid application under S. 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 in the City Civil Court at Calcutta praying that the aforesaid award dated 6th November, 1980 of Sri S. K. Bhattacharya, Labour Commissioner, West Bengal be set aside inter alia, on the ground that the Arbitrator had allegedly referred the matter to the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Serampore, who had prepared a report which was merely signed by the Labour Commissioner Sri S. K. Bhattacharya did not himself consider the materials on record. He did not also file his award in court. The appellant further alleged other grounds which according to it invalidated the said award.

5. The learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court by his order dated 6th April, 1981 has dismissed the case under S. 30 of the Arbitration Act and also the appellant's application for temporary injunction, inter alia, finding that