Back
1960 Supreme(All) 83
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
V. D. Bhargava, J.
A.TELLERY AND SONS - Appellant
Versus
CARPET MAZDOOR SABHA, A REGISTERED TRADE UNION AND ORS. - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ 704 Of 1959
Decided On : 03/31/1960
M.N.Shukla, SHAMBHU PRASAD, T.N.SAPRU
Section 19 of the Central Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, does not apply to proceedings under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, unless the State Legislature has incorporated a similar provision in its own Act.
Headnote:
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES - U. P. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - SECTION 4-I - ANNUAL INCREMENTS AND MEDICAL FACILITIES - NOTICE OF CHANGE - SECTION 19 OF THE CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - APPLICABILITY - INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL'S JURISDICTION - TECHNICAL OBJECTIONS - MERITS OF THE CASE.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a joint stock company, had been giving annual increments and medical facilities to its workmen as per awards and agreements. Due to financial losses, the petitioner served a notice under Section 4-I of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to stop the annual increments and medical facilities. The workmen raised an industrial dispute, which was referred to the Industrial Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the petitioner was not entitled to withdraw the benefits without giving two months' notice under Section 19 of the Central Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that Section 19 of the Central Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, did not apply to the proceedings under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as the State Legislature had not incorporated any similar provision in its own Act. The court further held that the Industrial Tribunal erred in refusing to consider the question on merits and in deciding the case solely on a technical ground.
Issues: 1. Whether Section 19 of the Central Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, applied to the proceedings under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 2. Whether the Industrial Tribunal had jurisdiction to decide the dispute. 3. Whether the Industrial Tribunal erred in refusing to consider the question on merits.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 19 of the Central Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, did not apply to the proceedings under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as the State Legislature had not incorporated any similar provision in its own Act. 2. The Industrial Tribunal had jurisdiction to decide the dispute. 3. The Industrial Tribunal erred in refusing to consider the question on merits and in deciding the case solely on a technical ground.
Final Decision: The court quashed the order of the Industrial Tribunal and directed it to act in accordance with law.
( 1 ) THIS is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by Messrs. A. Tellery and sons which is a joint stock company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1913, having its registered office at Varanas. The business of the Company is of manufacturing and selling, carpets. There had been disputes between the petitioner and its workers. It appears that there was no annual increment being given to the workmen. The dispute was referred for adjudication on the 21st of January 1952 by the Government of uttar Pradesh to the State Industrial Tribunal U. P. , Allahabad, which gave an award on the 26th of May, 1952 by which annual increments were fixed for all workmen except night watchmen. Thereafter, there also appears to be a dispute between the petitioner and its workmen about the medical facilities to be given to the workmen. That also formed a matter of industrial dispute and was referred by the Government on 5th of june, 1952, to the State Industrial Tribunal which gave an award dated the 18th of August, 1952, under which medical facilities were given to the workmen. By an agreement dated 30th of June, 1955, the Company agreed that it will give annual increments. We are not at the present moment concerned with the details of these awards and the agreement.
( 2 ) THESE awards had been given In the year 1952. According to the petitioner its financial condition had changed and it had been suffering losses for several years. Therefore, under section 4-I of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act the petitioner had served a notice upon its workmen to the following effect: "please, therefore, take notice that it has been decided to stop the Annual Increments which would accrue to the workmen of the Concern from 1st July, 1958 and onwards until its financial position improves as there is at present no further capacity with the concern to meet such extra charges. " thereafter acting under Section 4-I of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act the petitioner stopped payment of the annual increments. Similar notice was also given with respect to the stopping of the medical facilities and the reason given was also the same.
( 3 ) THE workmen of the concern raised an industrial dispute which was by an order of reference no. 906 (Reference) 76 (A L R)/1958, dated. November 22, 1958, issued by Sri Sri J. Prasad, deputy Labour Commissioner (Industrial Relations), Uttar Pradesh, in purported exercise of his powers under Section 4-K of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, referred (the matter) (sic) for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal (General) at Allahabad. The matter which had been referred to the Industrial Tribunal was as follows : "matter OF DISPUTE: 1. Whether the action of the employers in stopping the annual increments to their workmen with effect from 1st July, 1958 is unjustified and/or wrongful? If so, to what relief are the workmen entitled? 2. Should the employers be required to "continue to provide free medical treatment to the workmen? If so, from which date and with what details?" the matter came up before the Industrial Tribunal, and, inter alia several questions were raised and on the questions raised the following issues were framed : 1. Whether the reference is without jurisdiction and, therefore, void? 2. Whether the financial condition of the employers has deteriorated? If so, does that circumstance entitle them to withdraw the benefits secured to the workmen by awards and agreement? 3. Whether the employers have complied with the requirements of law which entitled them to ignore the previous awards and the agreements.
( 4 ) TO what relief, if any, are the workmen entitled? 4. The Industrial Tribunal came to the conclusion that the reference was within jurisdiction. It did not decide the question whether the financial condition of the employers had deteriorated or not and whether that circumstance entitled them to withdraw the secured benefits of the workmen. It came to the conclusion that
