Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Raghubar Dayal and Mukerji, JJ.
J.K.IRON AND STEEL CO.LTD., KANPUR - Appellant
Versus
LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL OF INDIA - Respondents
Writ Appln. 337 Of 1952
Decided On : 04/09/1953
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES - Adjudicator - Extension of time for making award - Power of State Government - U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (U. P. Act No. 28 of 1949), Ss. 3, 4, 8, 16 - Order dated 15-3-1951, Cl. 16.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, J. K. Iron and Steel Co. Ltd., dispensed with the services of 128 workers on 15-5-1951 and served them with a notice to this effect. The dismissal of the workers was challenged on their behalf by the Secretary, Iron and Steel Mazdoor Union, Kanpur. On 28-6-1951, the Governor referred this industrial dispute, between the petitioner firm and its workmen, to Sri J. N. Singh, Additional Regional Conciliation Officer, Kanpur, for adjudication. The matter in dispute was expressed thus in G. O. No. 3092 (TD)/xviii-28 (TD)/1951 dated 28-6-1951: "whether the retrenchment of the workmen given in the Annexure by Messrs. J. K. Iron and steel Co. , Ltd. , Kanpur is unjustified? if so, to what relief are the workmen entitled?" Clause 16 of the Order reads: "the Tribunal or the Adjudicator shall hear the dispute and pronounce its decision within 40 days (excluding holidays observed by Courts subordinate to the High Court) from the date of reference made to it by the State Government, and shall thereafter as soon as possible supply a copy of the same to the parties to the dispute, and to such other persons or bodies as the State government may in writing direct. Provided that the State Government may extend the said period from time to time. "
Finding of the Court:
The various orders extending the period for the making of the award by the adjudicator were valid orders, it being not necessary that such orders should have been passed before the expiry of the period which was sought to be extended.
Issues: 1. Whether the various orders extending the period for the making of the award by the adjudicator were valid orders? 2. Whether the adjudicator and the appellate Tribunal exceeded their jurisdiction in deciding that the order terminating the employment of the workmen opposite party was unjustified on account of the employers not taking action under standing order 16 (a)?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The power of the Governor to extend the period for the making of the award under Clauses 16 of the Order is not limited by any expression to the effect that such order should be passed before the termination of the period originally fixed or subsequently enlarged by an order made before the expiry of the original period or the extended period and that, therefore, the various orders extending the periods for making the award were valid orders and the adjudicator could, therefore, make the award upto 1-11-1951, on which date he did actually make the award. 2. The adjudicator or the Appellate Tribunal was not restricted with respect to the matters which should be taken into consideration by them in coming to a conclusion on the question referred about the justifiability of the retrenchment of the workmen.
Final Decision: The application for the issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the award of the adjudicator and the order of the Labour Appellate tribunal is rejected with costs.
( 1 ) THIS is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution, for the issue of a -writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the award dated 1-11-1951 and the order dated 4-7-1952, of the labour Appellate Tribunal.
( 2 ) THE petitioner is the J. K. Iron and Steel Co. , Ltd. , having its registered office at Kamla tower, Kanpur. It dispensed with the services of 128 workers on 15-5-1951 and served on them a notice to this effect:
"consequent to transfer of the Rolling Mill to Calcutta and want of scrap to work furnace department in full, the services of the persons as per list attached are dispensed with from today. Their wages and other dues in full settlement will be paid after 2 P. M. "
The dismissal of the workers was challenged on their behalf by the Secretary, Iron and Steel mazdoor Union, Kanpur.
( 3 ) ON 28-6-1951, the Governor in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3, 4 and 8, U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (U. P. Act No. 28 of 1949) and in pursuance of the provisions of clause 10 of Government Order No. 615 (LL)/xviii-7 (LL)/51, D/-15-3-1951, subsequently to be referred to as the Order, referred this industrial dispute, between the petitioner firm and its workmen, to Sri J. N. Singh, Additional Regional Conciliation Officer, Kanpur, for adjudication. The matter in dispute was expressed thus in G. O. No. 3092 (TD)/xviii-28 (TD)/1951 dated 28-6-1951:
"whether the retrenchment of the workmen given in the Annexure by Messrs. J. K. Iron and steel Co. , Ltd. , Kanpur is unjustified? if so, to what relief are the workmen entitled?" clause 16 of the Order reads: "the Tribunal or the Adjudicator shall hear the dispute and pronounce its decision within 40 days (excluding holidays observed by Courts subordinate to the High Court) from the date of reference made to it by the State Government, and shall thereafter as soon as possible supply a copy of the same to the parties to the dispute, and to such other persons or bodies as the State government may in writing direct. Provided that the State Government may extend the said period from time to time. "
The period of 40 days commencing from the 28th June terminated on the 14th August. The governor, however, extended the period for the decision of the adjudicator upto September 15, by an order dated the 31st August, again to September 30, by an order dated 24th September and lastly upto 1-11-1951, by an order dated 17-10-1951. It win be noted that these orders extending the period fax the decisions of the adjudicator were made after the expiry of the earlier periods and not before the expiry of those periods.
( 4 ) THE adjudicator made his award on 1-11-1951.
( 5 ) AGAINST this award both the parties to the dispute filed appeals before the Labour Appellate tribunal of India. The Tribunal modified the award, holding that the retrenchment was wholly unjustified and that the case was only a case for "play off" under Standing Order 16 (a), and ordering that they be reinstated and be given their full wages for the period above 12 days in every calendar month during which they were not allowed to work and were unemployed. It is against this order that this writ of certiorari is sought on the grounds that the award of the adjudicator was without jurisdiction inasmuch as the various extensions of the period for his decision were ordered after the expiry of the earlier period specified for the making of the award and that the adjudicator or the Appellate Tribunal had no jurisdiction to order that the workmen should be played off under the Standing Order 16 (a), particularly when there was a genuine shortage of material for a long period.
( 6 ) MR. Pathak, appearing for the petitioner, urges that the adjudicator became functus officio after the 14th August 1951, when the period of 40 days, commencing from the date of reference, expired and that, therefore, the Governor could not extend the period for making the award by an order passed subsequent to 14-8-1951,
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
