Back
2002 Supreme(Del) 715
High Court Of Delhi
APPAREL EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL - Appellant
Versus
P.O., INDUL.TRIBUNAL NO.1 - Respondent
Decided On : 05/16/2002
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Rule 2 (f) of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules 1957 and the constitutional framework in relation to the Union Territory to determine the Competent Authority for making the reference.
Headnote:
Jurisdiction - Industrial Disputes Act - The court dismissed the petitioner's application for framing additional issue and treating it as a preliminary issue regarding the jurisdiction of the reference to the Industrial Tribunal. The court found that the State Government, as per Rule 2 (f) of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules 1957, was the Competent Authority to make the reference, and the distinction between the Central and State Governments in relation to the Union Territory was rendered illusory. The court also noted that the judgment of the Supreme Court in Goa sampling Employees Association v. General Superintendence Co. of India Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. was not applicable to the issue at hand. The writ petition was dismissed with the above findings.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought framing of additional issue and treating it as a preliminary issue regarding the jurisdiction of the reference to the Industrial Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the application was an attempt to delay the proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the petitioner's application, stating that the State Government was the Competent Authority to make the reference, and the distinction between the Central and State Governments in relation to the Union Territory was illusory. The court also found that the Supreme Court judgment was not applicable to the issue at hand.
Issues: The main issue was whether the State Government or the Central Government was the Competent Authority to make the reference to the Industrial Tribunal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on Rule 2 (f) of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules 1957 and the interpretation of the constitutional framework in relation to the Union Territory to determine the Competent Authority for making the reference.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the parties were directed to appear before the Industrial Tribunal No. 1 in the Industrial Dispute case.
( 1 ) PETITIONER is aggrieved by an order of the Industrial tribunal dated 15. 3. 1999 rejecting application of the petitioner for framing of additional issue and for treating the same as a preliminary issue in respect of the jurisdiction of the reference itself to the Industrial Tribunal. It is the contention of the petitioner that it is the Central Government and not the State Government which is the Appropriate Authority to make the reference.
( 2 ) IN terms of the impugned order the Tribunal has not decided this controversy on merits but has come to the conclusion that the filing of the application was an attempt on part of the petitioner to unnecessary delay the proceedings.
( 3 ) IT is observed in me impugned order that the petitioner continued to participate in the proceedings and only an adverse order was passed against them on 11. 9. 1997 that they came up with request vide application dated 10. 10. 1997 that they be allowed to held a fresh enquiry into the charges against respondent No. 3 workman which was turned down on 19. 8. 1998 and the case was fixed for evidence. Thus it has been found that the application has been filed only to delay the proceedings.
( 4 ) THE aforesaid findings are based on the record of the case and I see no reason to diner with the same.
( 5 ) HOWEVER since the issue in question relates to one of the jurisdiction itself, i consider appropriate to also consider the said issue on merits. The reason for the same is also that the same issue has been considered in CW No. 2785/2000, Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Mahavir and Another, decided on 7. 3. 2002. It has been held in the said judgment that in view of Rule 2 (f) of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules 1957, State Government would be Competent Authority to make the reference. The said Rule 2 (f) is as under:
"2. Interpretation. (f) in relation to an industrial dispute in a Union Territory, for which the appropriate Government is the Central Government, reference to the central Government or the Government of India shall be construed as a reference to the Administrator of the territory, and reference to the chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) shall be construed as reference to the Appropriate Authority, appointed in that behalf by the Administrator of the territory. "
( 6 ) IN Municipal Corpmation of Delhi v. Mahavir and Another (supra), judgment of the leamed Single Judge of this Court in NBCC Ltd. v. M. K. Jain and Ors. , 1981 LAB. I. C. 62, was also taken note of where in paras 6 and 8 of the judgment learned Single Judge observed as under:
"even otherwise no exception could be taken to the order of reference, even if it be assumed that Central Government was the appropriate Government, inasmuch as the distinction between the Central and the State Governments in relation to the Union Territory in our constitutional framework is rendered illusory. Union Territory is administered by the President of India under article 239 of the Constitution of India, acting to such extent as he thinks fit, through the Administrator, to he appointed by him. In the case of the Union Territory, there is an amalgamation of the constitutional classification of legislative and executive powers between the Centre and the States. According to Section 3 (8), of me General Clauses Act, "central Government" in relation to the administration of a Union Territory means the Administrator acting within the scope of authority given to him under Article 239 of the Constitution of India and in terms of Section 3 (60) of the General Clauses Act, "state government", as respects anything done or to be done in a Union Territory, means the Central Government. In the case of a Union Territory, therefore, the Central and State Governments merge and it is immaterial whether an order of reference is made by one or the other. This contention must, therefore, fail. "
( 7 ) IN
