Back
MADRAS HIGH COURT
RAJAGOPALAN
Burmah Shell and Storage and Distributing Co., of India Ltd., Madras
Versus
The Labour Appellate Tribunal of India, Madras Bench, now sitting in Madras by its President and others
Writ Petns. Nos. 936 of 1955 and 138 of 1956
Decided On : 29 May, 1956
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES - JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE - RES JUDICATA - INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL - WORKMEN - DEFINITION - INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - S. 2(s), 10(1)(c), 16 - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, ART. 226 - WRIT OF CERTIORARI - WRIT OF MANDAMUS.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner company challenged the decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal, which held that three categories of employees, namely, the Depot Superintendent, Assistant Depot Superintendent, and Lady Secretary, were workmen as defined by the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that their claim for bonus was an industrial dispute within the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal. The company contended that these employees were not workmen and that the Appellate Tribunal erred in applying the principle of res judicata to bar a further investigation of the issue.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Appellate Tribunal erred in deciding the issue solely on the basis of res judicata and that the petitioner company should have been given the opportunity to place all relevant evidence on record before the Statutory Tribunal. The court further held that the decision of the Appellate Tribunal in prior proceedings between the same parties did not attract the principle of res judicata and bar a further investigation of the question.
Issues: 1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal erred in deciding the issue solely on the basis of res judicata? 2. Whether the petitioner company should have been given the opportunity to place all relevant evidence on record before the Statutory Tribunal? 3. Whether the decision of the Appellate Tribunal in prior proceedings between the same parties attracted the principle of res judicata and barred a further investigation of the question?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Appellate Tribunal erred in deciding the issue solely on the basis of res judicata because the decision of the Appellate Tribunal in prior proceedings between the same parties did not attract the principle of res judicata and bar a further investigation of the question. 2. The court held that the petitioner company should have been given the opportunity to place all relevant evidence on record before the Statutory Tribunal because the question of whether the three categories of employees were workmen as defined by the Industrial Disputes Act was a jurisdictional issue on which the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal depended. 3. The court held that the decision of the Appellate Tribunal in prior proceedings between the same parties did not attract the principle of res judicata and bar a further investigation of the question because the decision of the Appellate Tribunal in the prior proceedings was a decision which fell within the first category of cases to which Lord Esher referred, the principle of which decision was approved of by their Lordships of the Privy Council in 1956-1-WLR 289 (K).
Final Decision: The court made absolute the rule nisi issued in W. P. No. 936 of 1955 and set aside that part of the judgment of the Labour Appellate Tribunal which dealt with the claim in question. The court also made absolute the rule nisi issued in W. P. No. 138 of 1956 to the extent indicated above and issued a writ of mandamus to direct the Appellate Tribunal to hear and determine afresh the appeal preferred to it by the petitioner.
ORDER :- One of the questions referred under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, as an industrial dispute between the petitioner company and its employees, was the quantum of bonus payable to the workmen for 1952. The Workers Union claimed that three categories of employees, the Depot Superintendent, the Assistant Depot Superintendent and the lady Secretary, were also entitled to participate in the award of bonus as they were also "workmen" as defined by S. 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The company resisted that claim and pleaded that these three categories of employees were not workmen as defined by the Act, and that any claim on behalf of those employees would not be an industrial dispute" within the cognizance of the Industrial Tribunal.
2. That identical question arose for determination with reference to an industrial dispute, in 1951 in I. D. No. 2 of 1952, between the same parties, the company and the workers Union. The Industrial Tribunal held then that these three categories of employees, the Depot Superintendent, the Assistant Depot Superintendent and the Lady Secretary, fell outside the scope of the definition of "workmen" in the Industrial Disputes Act.
The Appellate Tribunal reversed that finding. The correctness of the decision of the Appellate Tribunal was upheld by the High Court in W. P. No. 405 of 1953, preferred by the company under Art. 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari : Burma Shell Oil Storage and Distribution Co. of India Ltd., Madras v. Labour Appellate Tribunal of India (A) Sankara Pattar v. Ramanatha Ayyar, 1954-2 Mad LJ 155 (B). The appeal preferred against that decision in W. P. No. 405 of 1953 (A) is still pending in this court.
3. With reference to the claim of bonus for 1952, the company sought an opportunity to place all the evidence it had on record in support of its contention that these three categories of employees were not workmen as defined by the Industrial Disputes Act. The plea of the Union, that the principle of res judicata should apply and that the company should not be permitted to re-open the question, was upheld by the Industrial Tribunal, and on appeal by the Labour Appellate Tribunal.
4. The Company applied under Art. 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari to set aside the order of the Labour Appellate Tribunal, W.P. No. 936 of 1955. The company followed it up with presenting W. P. No. 138 of 1956, in substance for the issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the Appellate Tribunal to hear and determine afresh the appeal preferred to it by the company against the award of the Industrial Tribunal.
5. What the Industrial Tribunal had to decide was the industrial dispute referred to it for adjudication under S. 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The industrial dispute was the claim for bonus preferred by the employees. It is not every claim of an employee or even a group of employees that can be an industrial dispute within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act.
The dispute should be between the employer and his workmen, workmen as defined by S. 2(s) of the Act. As incidental to the determination of the industrial dispute referred to it for adjudication, the industrial tribunal had to decide whether the three categories of employees mentioned above were workmen as defined by the Act. In W. P. No. 405 of 1953 (Mad) (A) - Rajagopala Aiyangar, J., observed :
". . . .those who assail the validity of the award passed by the Tribunals functioning under the Industrial Disputes Act must prove before the Court that this preliminary basis for their jurisdiction exists; in other words, that unless the court is satisfied that the parties to a dispute stand in the relation of an employer and a workman as defined in the Act, the award is null and void as lacking in an essential preliminary to the jurisdiction of the tribunal."
The learned Judge observed :
"The contention raised on behalf of the petitioners that there sh
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
