Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
K.L.Gosain and A.N.Grover JJ.
Jagatjit Cotton Textile Mills Ltd., Phagware
Versus
Industrial Tribunal, Patiala
Civil MISCELLANEOUS No. 143 of 1956,
Decided On : MARCH 31, 1959
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - SECTION 10 - INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - JURISDICTION - EXTENSION OF LIFE OF TRIBUNAL - RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT - NOT PERMISSIBLE - FRESH REFERENCE NECESSARY - FAILURE TO RAISE OBJECTION BEFORE TRIBUNAL - EFFECT - WRIT OF CERTIORARI - DISCRETION OF COURT - FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner company and its workmen were involved in certain industrial disputes, which were referred to an Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. The Tribunal's life was initially set for six months, but it was later extended for another six months with retrospective effect. The petitioner challenged the extension of the Tribunal's life and the award made by it, arguing that the extension was void and the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to make the award.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the extension of the Tribunal's life with retrospective effect was not permissible under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It further held that since the Tribunal was deemed to have been freshly constituted after the extension, a fresh reference under Section 10 of the Act was necessary. The Court also held that the petitioner's failure to raise the objection of lack of jurisdiction before the Tribunal was a relevant factor in determining whether to grant a writ of certiorari. However, the Court found that the petitioner had not provided a cogent explanation for its failure to raise the objection and that its conduct disentitled it to the relief sought.
Issues: 1. Whether the extension of the Tribunal's life with retrospective effect was valid? 2. Whether a fresh reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was necessary after the extension of the Tribunal's life? 3. Whether the petitioner's failure to raise the objection of lack of jurisdiction before the Tribunal precluded it from seeking a writ of certiorari?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the extension of the Tribunal's life with retrospective effect was not permissible under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as it was not authorized by any express powers in the Act and could not be derived from the provisions of Section 21 of the General Clauses Act. 2. The Court held that a fresh reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was necessary after the extension of the Tribunal's life, as the Tribunal was deemed to have been freshly constituted after the extension. 3. The Court held that the petitioner's failure to raise the objection of lack of jurisdiction before the Tribunal was a relevant factor in determining whether to grant a writ of certiorari. However, the Court found that the petitioner had not provided a cogent explanation for its failure to raise the objection and that its conduct disentitled it to the relief sought.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the parties were left to bear their own costs.
A.N.Grover, J.
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, by which an award made by the Industrial Tribunal, Patiala is sought to be quashed by certiorari, arises in the following circumstances: Certain Industrial disputes arose between the petitioner company And its workmen and the same were referred on 11-5-1955 to S. Sant Ram Garg, Industrial Tribunal at Kapurthala, for adjudication by means of a notification dated 11-5-1955 issued by the erstwhile Pepsu State. Later on another notification was issued on 13-8-1955 by which the Industrial Tribunal at Kapurthala (later at Patiala) was constituted a Tribunal for the whole of the erstwhile Pepsu State for a period of six months and S. Narindar Singh, retired District Judge, was appointed its sole member.
All pending and future industrial disputes were to be adjudicated upon by the aforesaid Tribunal. On 3-9-1955 another notification was issued by which the disputes pending between the petitioner and its workmen were directed to be disposed of by the aforesaid Industrial Tribunal. These disputes were still pending when the period of six months, for which the Industrial Tribunal had been constituted expired. On 20-2-1956 the petitioner made an application to the Tribunal that the period of six months had expired, and the Tribunal was left with no jurisdiction to proceed with the hearing of the reference. Thereupon the Tribunal stayed the proceedings On 29-2-1956 a notification was issued by which the life of the Tribunal was extended for a period of six months from the date of the expiry of the previous period, namely, 13-2-1956. S. Narindar Singhs tenure was also extended for the same period.
On 12-3-1956 the Tribunal recorded an order in which it is mentioned that the parties had given their statements to the effect that they did not want de novo trial and that the case might be decided on the material on the record. The Tribunal gave an award on 13-7-1956 which was published in the State Gazette on 4-8-1956. The Petitioner filed a petition in this Court on 30-8-1956 under Article 226 of the Constitution alleging inter alia that the notification extending the life of the Tribunal was void and inoperative as the same could not be done with retrospective effect.
It was also alleged that the award was without jurisdiction and void as no fresh reference had been made by the Government to the Tribunal, which should be deemed to have been appointed on 29-2-1956, and that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to decide the disputes referred to the previous Tribunal. There were allegations of illegalities and apparent errors of law and fact which, according to the petitioner, rendered the award in executable and inoperative. The petition was admitted on 31-8-1956. The petitioner also filed an appeal against the award to the Labour Appellate Tribunal on the same day, i.e. 31-8-1956, which reached the Appellate Tribunal on 4-9-1956.
That appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal on 24-12-1956 on the ground that it was not competent, The petitioner was allowed to amend its previous petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution on 21-9-1956, This petition came up before Gosain J. on 26-3-1958, who made an order on that date to the effect that he wanted to have the assistance of another Judge for determination of the case and directed that the case be laid before the Honourable Chief Justice for orders under proviso (b), Clause (xx), Chapter III-B, High Court Rules and Orders, Volume V. The amended petition has thus been placed before us for final disposal.
2. It is contended by Mr. Jagan Nath Kaushal on behalf of the petitioner that on the expiry of six months from 13-8-1955, the Industrial Tribunal of which S. Narindar Singh was the sole member became functus officio, and that His Highness the Rajpramukh was not empowered to extend the life of the Tribunal by a further period of six months from the date on which the six months period for which the Tribunal was originally
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
