Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
V. G. Oak, J.
J.K.JUTE MILLS COMPANY LTD. - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Respondents
. . Of .
Decided On : 03/23/1962
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - SECTION 3 - VALIDITY - RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT - U. P. GOVERNMENT NOTIFICATION DATED 25-4-1961 - VALIDITY - CENTRAL WAGE BOARD FOR JUTE INDUSTRY - RECOMMENDATION - ACCEPTANCE BY STATE GOVERNMENT - NOTIFICATION DIRECTING EMPLOYERS TO GRANT INTERIM RELIEF TO WORKMEN - VALIDITY.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, three jute mills in Uttar Pradesh, challenged the validity of a Government notification issued under Section 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, directing them to grant interim relief to their workmen with effect from 1 October 1960, based on the recommendation of a central wage board for the jute industry.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the impugned notification was valid and that the State Government had the power to issue such a notification under Section 3 of the Act. The court also held that the notification did not have retrospective effect, as it merely attached a condition to the employment of workmen in the year 1961.
Issues: 1. Whether Section 3(b) of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is valid? 2. Whether the impugned notification has retrospective effect?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 3(b) of the Act is valid as it constitutes a reasonable restriction on the right conferred on citizens by Sub-Clauses (f) and (g) of Clause (1) of Article 19 of the Constitution, considering the safeguard contained in the opening paragraph of Section 3 of the Act. 2. The impugned notification does not have retrospective effect as it merely attaches a condition to the employment of workmen in the year 1961.
Final Decision: The court dismissed all three connected writ petitions with costs.
( 1 ) THESE are three connected writ petitions directed against the same Government notification issued under Section 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereafter referred to as the Act ). Since the three (petitions raise the same questions of fact land law, it will be convenient to dispose of the three petitions by a common judgment. I shall refer to the facts in one case. J. K. Jute Mills Company, Ltd. , Kanpur, are the petitioner in Writ No. 1254 of 1961.
( 2 ) ACCORDING to the affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner, the petitioner is a public limited company. It carries on business of manufacture of jute goods at Kanpur. On 25 August 1960, the government of India set up a central wage board for jute industry. The wage board recommended that certain interim relief should be given to workmen in the jute industry. The interim relief was by way of additional wages for 1960 and 1961. The recommendation of the wage board was accepted by the Central Government. The State Government thereupon proceeded to Rot on the recommendation of the wage board. The petitioner was advised to implement the recommendation of the wage board. But the petitioner was not agreeable, it was pointed out to the State Government that conditions in Uttar Pradesh were different from those obtaining in Bengal. It was not, therefore, practicable to implement the recommendation of the wage board by the three petitioners. But the State Government did not accept the protest lodged on behalf of the petitioners. On 25 April 1961, the State Government issued an order under section 3 of the Act directing the three petitioners to grant interim relief to their workmen with effect from 1 October 1960. These writ petitions are directed against the Government notification, dated 25 April 1961.
( 3 ) THE president of the J. K. Jute Mill Mazdoor Union, Kanpur, has filed one counter-affidavit on behalf of respondent 2. Sri Har Swarup Sharma, who is Up Sachiv to Uttar Pradesh Government in the Labour Department, has filed another counter-affidavit on behalf of respondent 1.
( 4 ) ANNEXURE A to the affidavit is the resolution of Government of India, dated 25 August 1960, constituting a central wage board for Jute industry, Annexure D to the affidavits is the resolution of Government of India, dated 25 January 1961, accepting the recommendation of the central wage board. Annexure H to the affidavit in the notification of Uttar Pradesh Government, dated 25 April 1961, under Section 3 of the Act.
( 5 ) SRI R. S. Pathak appearing for the petitioners did not challenge the Government resolution (annexure A) for the constitution of a central wage board. But he criticized the membership of the wage board. Pilkington and Goenka were nominated as members representing employers on the wage board. It is said that those two members do not represent the three petitioners. There are more than one hundred jute mills in India. Selecting representatives of employers was a matter of some difficulty. There is no definite ground taken in the writ petitions that these two members are biased against the three petitioners. We need not, therefore, give further consideration to the constitution of the wage board.
( 6 ) SRI Pathak contended that the wage board ignored the basic principles for fixation of wages. It is said that those basic principles for fixing wages are to be found in Express Newspapers (Private), Ltd. v. Union of India 1961-I L. L. J. 339 and in Lipton, Ltd. and another v. their employees 1959-I L. L. J. 431.
( 7 ) NEITHER party has filed a copy of the report of the central wage board recommending the interim relief in dispute. In the absence of that report, it is difficult to say whether the board considered the relevant factors for fixation of wages for workmen in jute industry.
( 8 ) IT may further be pointed out that the wage board has not been impleaded as respondent in these writ petitions. I am informed that the wage board functions at Cal
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
