Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
V. Bhargava and M. L. Chaturvedi, JJ.
E.SEFTON AND CO., MIRZAPUR - Appellant
Versus
TEXTILE MILL MAZDOOR UNION - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ 1016 Of 1955
Decided On : 05/03/1957
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES - Notification referring dispute to Adjudicator - Validity - Specification of industry under S. 2 (a) (i) of the Central Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Necessity - U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (U. P. Act No. XXVIII of 1947), Ss. 2, 3, 6 - Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950 (Act No. 48 of 1950), S. 16 - Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 (Act No. 65 of 1951), Ss. 2, 10, 11 - Industries (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 1953 (Act No. 26 of 1953) - Atomic Energy Act, 1948 (Act No. 33 of 1948), S. 2 - Constitution of India, Art. 226.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner company, Messrs. E. Sefton and Co., Mirzapur, filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, praying for the issue of an order, direction or writ in the nature of certiorari to be issued to opposite parties, the Government of the State of Uttar Pradesh, The Regional conciliation Officer, Allahabad, and the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India, Lucknow, to produce before this Court the notification dated 27th December 1954, the award dated 19th June 1955 and the decision dated 26th September 1955, and the further prayer is that on production thereof, the notification, the award and the decision referred to above be quashed.
Finding of the Court:
1. The notification dated 27th December 1954, issued by the Government of the State of Uttar Pradesh, referring the industrial dispute to the Adjudicator, was valid and the Adjudicator acted in exercise of competent jurisdiction vested in him to give the award on the dispute referred to him. 2. The decision given by the Adjudicator thereafter came to be substituted by the decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India (Lucknow Bench) and that Tribunal has ceased to exist within the jurisdiction of this Court, with the further circumstance that the records of the case are also outside the jurisdiction of this court. 3. Consequently, none of the three orders impugned by this writ petition are liable to be quashed.
Issues: 1. Whether the notification dated 27th December 1954, issued by the Government of the State of Uttar Pradesh, referring the industrial dispute to the Adjudicator, was valid? 2. Whether the Adjudicator acted in exercise of competent jurisdiction vested in him to give the award on the dispute referred to him? 3. Whether the decision given by the Adjudicator thereafter came to be substituted by the decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India (Lucknow Bench) and that Tribunal has ceased to exist within the jurisdiction of this Court? 4. Whether the records of the case are also outside the jurisdiction of this court? 5. Whether any of the three orders impugned by this writ petition are liable to be quashed?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The industry carried on by the petitioner company is a controlled industry which has been specified in this behalf by the central Government within the meaning of this expression as used in Section 2 (a) (i) of the central Industrial Disputes Act. 2. The mere fact that the industry of the petitioner company is a controlled industry is not sufficient to make Section 2 (a) (i) of the Central Industrial disputes Act applicable to it, so as to make the Central Government the appropriate Government for this industry. 3. The requirement of the industry being a controlled industry is clearly satisfied by the industry of the petitioner company as has been held above. 4. The main argument has centred round the other requirement that the industry must be specified in this behalf by the Central Government. 5. No such notification appears to have been issued with respect to the industry carried on by the petitioner company. 6. The specification under Sub-clause (i) of Clause (a) of Section 2 of the Central Industrial Disputes Act has to be made in respect of controlled industries which are declared as such by any other special law. 7. In such a case, it is not possible to hold that the registration and licensing in one special law must be deemed to be a specification for the purposes of the Central Industrial Disputes Act. 8. The factual existence of the dispute and the necessity of making reference for adjudication for the purposes mentioned in the appropriate law cannot be challenged in Courts. 9. The Courts are competent only to go into the question whether the dispute that was referred constituted an industrial dispute or not.
Final Decision: The petition fails and is dismissed with costs. A sum of Rs. 250 is assessed as costs payable to opposite party No. 1 and the same amount is payable to opposite parties Nos. 2 to 4 as fees for counsel engaged by them.
( 1 ) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners, Messrs. E. Sefton and co. , Mirzapur, have prayed for the issue of an order, direction or writ in the nature of certiorari to be issued to opposite parties, the Government of the State of Uttar Pradesh, The Regional conciliation Officer, Allahabad, and the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India, Lucknow, to produce before this Court the notification dated 27th December 1954, the award dated 19th June 1955 and the decision dated 26th September 1955, and the further prayer is that on production thereof, the notification, the award and the decision referred to above be quashed.
( 2 ) TWO persons Aditya Prasad and Tasad-duq Husain were employed by the petitioner company, having been taken into service on the 29th October 1948 and 26th February 1951, respectively. They were retrenched on the 5th April 1954 and 8th April 1954, respectively. It is alleged that, at the time of this retrenchment, none of them made any protest nor was any demand made by them against the Company. Further, it is alleged that even the opposite party No. 1, The Textile Mill Mazdoor Union, mirzapur, at that stage made no protest and made no demand in respect of that retrenchment; on the other hand, on their applications dated 6th April 1954 and 10th April 1954, respectively, these two persons were given temporary jobs by the petitioner-Company for the period of. three months as ice clerks in a subsidiary business. This temporary employment of these two persons was terminated on the -13th July 1954 and 17th July 1954, respectively. It is stated that even at this stage there was no protest or demand on their behalf. In the same month of July 1954, the petitioner-Company received a notice from the Regional Conciliation officer, Allahabad, stating that the latter had received an application from opposite party No. 1, the Textile Mill Mazdoor Union. Mirzapur. with a prayer that a Conciliation Board be constituted in accordance with G. O. No. V-615 (u)/xiii- (LL)/51, dated March 15, 1951, to investigate into the matter referred to in that application. It appears that the matter referred to in that application included the retrenchment of these two persons Aditya Prasad and Tasadduq Husain in the month of April 1954. In the notice, the petitioner-Company was directed to nominate its representative who was to sit on the Board of conciliation, and 20th July 1955 was fixed as the date on which the Company was to put in appearance for the investigation of that matter. Besides this matter relating to these two persons, one more matter was referred to the Conciliation Officer by the opposite party No. 1, The Textile mill Mazdoor Union, Mirzapur, and that raised the question of payment of four months wages as bonus to the workmen for the year 1952-53. The petitioner-Company contended that there was no dispute between the Company and its workmen at all and on that account refused to submit to the conciliation proceedings. The representative of the Company, who appeared before the Regional Conciliation Officer in response to the notice issued, explained the point of the view of the petitioner-Company to that officer. Thereupon the Regional Conciliation Officer held that the conciliation proceedings could not succeed and made a report to the Government of the State of Uttar Pradesh, thereupon, the State Government issued a notification dated the 27th December 1954, which is one of the orders impugned in this writ petition. In this notification, it was stated that the governor was satisfied that an industrial dispute existed with respect to the matters specified in the notification and that, in the opinion of, the Governor, it was necessary for the maintenance of public order and for maintaining employment to refer the said dispute to the Regional conciliation Officer, Sri J. N. Srivas-tava, for adjudication. This reference to the Regional conciliation Officer for adjudication was purpo
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
