Back
2008 Supreme(Ori) 711
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
B.S. Chauhan, B.N. Mahapatra, JJ.
ORISSA COTTON MILLS - APPELLANT
Versus
PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT AND OTHERS - RESPONDENT
W.A. No. 166 of 2008
Decided On : 21-10-2008
J.K. Tripathy, B.S. Tripathy, P.K. Chand, D. Satpathy, S. Mishra, P. Tripathy and M. Tripathy, for the Appellant; S.S. Das and R. Das, for the Respondent
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Labour Court's jurisdiction is derived from the reference made by the appropriate Government, and if the reference itself is found to be invalid, the Labour Court loses its jurisdiction to adjudicate upon it. The court also emphasized the need for expeditious resolution of disputes, particularly in labor matters.
Headnote:
Industrial Dispute Act - Competence of State Government to make reference - Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1) - Section 10(1] - The court discussed the competence of the State Government to make reference under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, particularly focusing on Section 10(1) and its interpretation. The court emphasized that the Labour Court's jurisdiction is derived from the reference made by the appropriate Government and that if the reference itself is found to be invalid, the Labour Court loses its jurisdiction to adjudicate upon it. The judgment referenced several cases to support the principle that the Labour Court's power and jurisdiction are determined by the terms of reference, and that it cannot go beyond the scope of the reference or raise issues precluded by the parties. The court also highlighted the discretion given to the court to decide preliminary issues first, but cautioned against trying mixed issues of law and facts as preliminary issues. Additionally, the court emphasized the need for expeditious resolution of disputes, particularly in labor matters, and cited relevant cases to support its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed a writ petition challenging the rejection of their application by the Labour Court to decide whether the reference made by the State Government under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 was valid as a preliminary issue. The Labour Court rejected the application, and the single judge upheld the decision, stating that all issues should be decided together. The appellant sought direction for the Labour Court to decide the issue of the competence of the State Government to make the reference as a preliminary issue.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Labour Court's jurisdiction is derived from the reference made by the appropriate Government, and if the reference itself is invalid, the Labour Court loses its jurisdiction to adjudicate upon it. The court emphasized the need for expeditious resolution of disputes and directed the Labour Court to decide the entire case, including the issue of the competence of the State Government to make the reference, expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Labour Court should decide the competence of the State Government to make the reference under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 as a preliminary issue or whether all issues should be decided together.
Ratio Decidendi: The Labour Court's jurisdiction is derived from the reference made by the appropriate Government, and if the reference itself is found to be invalid, the Labour Court loses its jurisdiction to adjudicate upon it. The court emphasized the need for expeditious resolution of disputes, particularly in labor matters, and directed the Labour Court to decide the entire case, including the issue of the competence of the State Government to make the reference, expeditiously.
Final Decision: The appeal was disposed of, and the Labour Court was directed to decide the entire case, including the issue of the competence of the State Government to make the reference, expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months.
JUDGMENT :
B.S. Chauhan, C.J. - This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 5.8.2008 by which the learned Single Judge rejected the writ petition for issuing a direction to the Labour Court, Bhubaneswar to decide a issue as to whether the reference has been made by the proper Government as a preliminary issue observing that the Labour court should decide the matter as a whole and not piece meal.
2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the case are that the reference under the provisions of Industrial Dispute act, 1947 (hereinafter called 'the Act') had been made vide order dated 20.11.1992.
The present Appellant raised dispute in 1998 before the Labour Court, Bhubaneswar that the reference had been made by the State Government which was not the appropriate Government. It was the Central Government which was competent to make the reference. Therefore, the issue as to whether reference had been made by the appropriate Government should be decided as a preliminary issue. The application was rejected by the Labour Court vide order dated 17.8.1999 observing that all the issues involved therein would be decided together. Being aggrieved, the present Appellant filed a writ petition challenging the said order which has been rejected by the learned Single Judge observing that all the issues should be decided together.
3. We have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.
4. Undoubtedly the Labour Court gets the jurisdiction from the reference and it is not like the Civil Court that any suit can be entertained. The Labour Court cannot go beyond the terms of reference nor it can travel beyond the pleadings and arrogate the power to raise issues which the parties to the reference are precluded to raise. The terms of reference determine the scope of its power and jurisdiction of the Labour Court from case to case. Whether certain points of dispute have been referred to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication it may, while dealing with the said points, deal with matters incidental thereto. However, such power cannot be exercised by the Court/Tribunal so as to enlarge materially the scope of reference itself for the reason that the Court/Tribunal drives its jurisdiction from the order of reference passed by the appropriate Government. (Vide Hochtief Gammon Vs. Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneshwar, Orissa and Others, ; Pottery Mazdoor Panchayat v. The Perfect Pottery Company Ltd. and Anr., AIR 1979 SC 1356; and Mahendra L. Jain and Ors. v. Indore Development Authority and Ors., AIR 2005 SC 1252).
Therefore, if the reference itself is bad, the Labour Court loses its jurisdiction to adjudicate upon it.
5. The issue involved herein is No. more res-integra. It has been considered by the Courts time and again. The Civil Court, in view of the provision contained in Order 14 Rule 2 of the CPC (hereinafter called as 'Code of Code of Civil Procedure'), after amendment in 1976, has been conferred a great deal of latitude in conducting the trial and decide the issues in any manner giving discretion to the Court to decide the preliminary issue first. However, the superior Court should not lightly interfere with that discretion, merely because the procedure adopted by the trial court does not suit to one of the parties unless it is demonstrated that such procedure is likely to result in injustice. (Vide Shyama Sundar Mohapatra Vs. Janaki Ballav Patnaik and Others, ; and Baishnab Charan Ray Vs. Debraj Sahoo and Another, ).
6. However, it remains the discretion of the Court as the legislature in its wisdom has used the words "it may try" in Rule 2 (2) of Order 14 are clearly indicates the fact that discretion is given to the court and No. duty is cast upon the Court to decide any issue as a preliminary Issue.
7. In Major S.S. Khanna Vs. Brig. F.J. Dillon the Supreme Court considered the issue regarding the maintainability of a Suit and held as under:-
Under Order 14 Rule 2 of the Code, where i
