Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. NAGAMUTHU
Textile Technical Tradesmen Association
Versus
Union of India & Others
W.P. Nos. 15517, 15518, 16716 & 16765 of 2001
Decided On :Decided on : 29-09-2010
(B)Constitution of India-Basic structure-Court-Judgment-Abeyance-Executive-Power-An order passed by the Court or Tribunal cannot be made ineffective or rendered nullified either by the Executive or Legislature.
Therefore, an award made by the Labour Court under the provisions of the Act is an adjudicatory order and the same is enforceable. Since the Labour Court has been held to be a Court, the award passed by the Court is to be executed and the same cannot be allowed to be nullified either by the executive or by the legislature. Para 15
(C)Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947)-Sec.17A-Industrial Dispute-Award- Implementation-Suspension-Notification- Government- Power-Law-Constitutionality-Basic structure-Sec.17-A of the Industrial Disputes Act violates the basic structure of the Constitution of India and unconstitutional.
Under our constitutional scheme, the executive has not been empowered to exercise an appeal jurisdiction over the judicial verdicts of the Courts. By conferring such power on the executive under Section 17-A of the Act, the Parliament, has in essence, caused a severe jolt to the independence of the judiciary. Apart from that, the celebrated concept of separation of powers as ordained in the Constitution is also infringed by the impugned provision. Thus, the impugned provision is a serious threat to the basic structure and if allowed to remain in operation, it will undoubtedly shake the foundation upon which our democracy rests. If judicial verdicts are to be nullified by the executive, it will be a mockery of the very judicial system. The independence of the judiciary is a very precious and fundamental concept, which needs to be preserved. Therefore, I cannot have any hesitation to hold that the impugned provision viz., Section 17-A of the Act is void, and accordingly, it is liable to be struck down. Para 17
(D)Constitution of India-Basic structure-Law-Violation-Declaration-High Court-Effect-Declaration by a High Court striking down a provision as unconstitutional would render the relevant provision unenforceable throughout India.
As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in view of clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, if once it is adjudged by a High Court that a particular Parliamentary Act or a provision of the said Act is unconstitutional, in effect, it is as if the said Act/provision had never been in force. Para 23
1. The constitutionality of Section 17(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, [hereinafter referred to as "the Act"], which was introduced by the Industrial Disputes Amendment Act, 1956 and the consequential order passed under Section 17(A) of the Act by the Government of Puducherry in respect of an award made by the Special Industrial Tribunal, Puducherry, under the Act are under challenge in this Writ Petition.
2. The petitioners/Trade Union raised an industrial dispute regarding wage revision before the Special Industrial Tribunal and the Tribunal directed the respondents to revise the wages of the workmen, as detailed in the award. However, the Government of Puduchery, by the impugned order issued under Section 17-A of the Act, has declined to enforce the same. Thus, the petitioners are aggrieved by the same.
3. Section 17-A (1,2,3&4) of the Act reads as follows;-
17A. Commencement of the award.-(1) An award (including an arbitration award) shall become enforceable on the expiry of thirty days from the date of its publication under section 17:
Provided that--
(a) if the appropriate Government is of opinion, in any case where the award has been given by a Labour Court or Tribunal in relation to an industrial dispute to which it is a party; or
(b) if the Central Government is of opinion, in any case where the award has been given by a National Tribunal, that it will be inexpedient on public grounds affecting national economy or social justice to give effect to the whole or any part of the award, the appropriate Government, or as the case may be, the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare that the award shall not become enforceable on the expiry of the said period of thirty days.
(2) Where any declaration has been made in relation to an award under the proviso to sub-section (1), the appropriate Government or the Central Government may, within ninety days from the date of publication of the award under section 17, make an order rejecting or modifying the award, and shall, on the first available opportunity, lay the award together with a copy of the order before the Legislature of the State, if the order has been made by a State Government, or before Parliament, if the order has been made by the Central Government.
(3) Where any award as rejected or modified by an order made under sub-section (2) is laid before the Legislature of a State or before Parliament, such award shall become enforceable on the expiry of fifteen days from the date on which it is so laid; and where no order under sub-section (2) is made in pursuance of a declaration under the proviso to sub-section (1), the award shall become enforceable on the expiry of the period of ninety days referred to in sub-section (2).
(4) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (1) and sub-section (3) regarding the enforceability of an award, the award shall come into operation with effect from such date as may be specified therein, but where no date is so specified, it shall come into operation on the 167 date when the award becomes enforceable under sub-section (1) or subsection (3), as the case may be.].
4. The main challenge to the constitutionality of Section 17(A) of the Act is on the ground that it is an affront to the independence of the judiciary, which is one of the basic features of the Indian Constitution as laid down by a Constitution Bench of the Honble Supreme Court in the famous case in Kesavananda Bharathi vs. State of Kerala reported in AIR 1973 SC 1461. But, it is the contention of the respondent Puducherry Government that there is no such violation of basic structure, and therefore, the impugned provision cannot be held to be void. It is further contended that the impugned provision falls within the ambit of the Legislative competence of the Parliament.
5. It is brought to the notice of the Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner that when a similar challenge was made to Section 17(A) of the Act, the High
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
