SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1995 Supreme(Ori) 368

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
P.C. Naik, A. Pasayat, JJ.
PANCHU MAHAKUD AND OTHERS - APPELLANT
Versus
P.C. MOHANTY AND OTHERS - RESPONDENT
O.J.C. No. 2525 of 1986
Decided On : 09-01-1995

Advocates Appeared:
R. Mukherjee and J.P. Choudhury, for the Appellant; S.P. Misra and S. Das for Respondent No. 1, S.C. Ghose and R.K. Shau for Respondent No. 2 and Additional Government Advocate, for the Respondent

Substitution is permissible in a proceeding under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in case of death of workman or employer.

Headnote:

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - SECTION 33C(2) - SUBSTITUTION OF LEGAL HEIRS - DEATH OF EMPLOYER - SCOPE OF SUBSTITUTION - LEGAL PRINCIPLES

Fact of the Case:

An employer died during the pendency of a proceeding under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The petitioner, a workman, filed an application for substitution of the employer's legal heirs. The Labour Court rejected the application, holding that the proceeding abated on the death of the employer and there was no scope for substitution.

Finding of the Court:

The Orissa High Court held that substitution is permissible in a proceeding under Section 33C(2) of the Act, in case of death of workman or employer. The Court observed that the primary duty of Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court, as the case may be, is to establish peace in the industry between employer and workman. Any unfair action by the management even against an individual worker might cast its shadow on the general body of the workers who might get perturbed by such action. A resolution of the dispute might then become necessary for industrial peace not withstanding death of the workman concerned pending proceeding.

Issues: Whether on the death of an employer, there is scope for substitution of his legal heirs, in a proceeding u/s 33C(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that procedure which aims at furthering ends of justice cannot be faulted unless it is repugnant to any specific provision of a statute. By permitting substitution of the deceased workman or an employer, as the case may be, in a proceeding u/s 33C(2) of the Act the ends of justice shall be furthered.

Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ petition and held that substitution is permissible in a proceeding under Section 33C(2) of the Act, in case of death of workman or employer.

JUDGMENT :

A. Pasayat, J. - A short, but interesting question has been raised in this case. Whether on the death of an employer, there is scope for substitution of his legal heirs, in aproceeding u/s 33C(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short, the 'Act') is that question.

2. A brief reference to the factual aspects is necessary for clearing the deck relating to the legal position. One B.C. Mohanty (hereinafter referred to as the 'employer') was the lessee under State Government. In respect of chromite mine at Sukinda, and he was proprietor of his business concern. On account of advanced age, he sought for permission from the State Government to transfer the lease. Such permission was granted on October 30, 1980, On April 27, 1981 a transfer deed was executed, and the concern was taken over by a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 styled as M/s. E.G. Mohanty and Co.Ltd. with effect from April 28, 1981. An application u/s 33C(2) of the Act was filed by the petitioner on April 28, 1981 before the Labour Court, Bhubaneswar. During its pendency, employer died on November 4, 1983. An application was filed by petitioner for substituting his legal heirs, which was rejected by the Labour Court on the ground that on the death of employer the proceeding abated, and there was no scope for any substitution as provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, 'CPC') were not applicable to aproceeding under Sec.33C(2) of the Act. Reliance was placed on a decision of this Court in Haramani Naik and Ors. v. Management, Samaj and another 46 (1978) CLT 283 where a Division Bench of this Court while dealing with the question v "ether on the death of worker, the proceeding abate" held in the affirmative. It was held that same analogy can be applied in case of employer.

3. Mr. A. Mukherjee, learned counsel for petitioner submits that analogy accepted by the Labour Court is not in accordance with law, equity and fair play. Though application of CPC to a proceeding under the Act is to a limited extent, procedure which would further ends of justice can be adopted, as there would be no repugnancy. With reference to Sub-Sec. (8) of Section 10 of the Act introduced by Act 45 of 1982 it is submitted that a proceeding before the Labour Court, Criminal Court, National Tribunal in relation to an industrial dispute, does not lapse merely on the reason of death of party, being a workman. Reference is also made to Section 18 of the Act which deals with persons on whom settlement and awards arc prescribed to be binding. Mr. S.P, Misra, learned counsel for opp. parties 1 and 2 however, submits that position is different so far as 'employer' is concerned. According to him had it been legislative intent, Sub-section (6) of Section 10 would have provided for both the workman and employer, and not workman alone.

4. It is necessary to take note of view expressed by apex Court in Rameshwar Manjhi (Deceased) through his son Lakhiram Manjhi Vs. Managemenmt of Sangramgarh Colliery and others. It was observed that on the death of a workman, liis heirs and legal representatives can continue the reference or an application under Sec.33C(2) of the Act, before the Tribunal/Labour Court. Even when the reference is of an individual dispute under Sec.24 of me Act, on the death of workman the Tribunal does not become functus officio, and the reference does not abate merely because pending adjudication the workman concerned died. It is open to the heirs and legal representative of the deceased workman to have the matter agitated and decided. Decision of this Court in Haramani Naik's case (supra) was specifically overruled, being not in the line with the view expressed by apex Court. The scope of adjudication by the Tribunal under the Act is wider than determination of legal rights of parties involved of redressing grievance of an aggrieved workman in accordance with law. Adjudication by the Act is only an alternative form of settlement of industrial disputes





Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top