Back
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHBAD
MOOTHAM, CHATURVEDI, JJ.
British India Corporation Ltd., Kanpur
Versus
Govt. of Uttar Pradesh
Civil Misc. Writ No. 7934 of 1951
Decided On : 05-03-1954
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT - S. 3 - Validity - Delegation of legislative power - Extent - Industrial dispute - Existence - Fundamental right - Art. 19(1)(f) - Scope.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a public limited company, issued a notice to its employees informing them of the payment of a gratuity (bonus) for the year ending 31-12-1950. The bonus was paid in May 1951, and receipts were given by the employees in full and final settlement of all claims for bonus for that year. On 28-7-1951, the Kanpur Mechanical and Technical Workers Union made an application to the Chairman of the Regional Conciliation Board (Leather), Kanpur, praying for the enhancement of the bonus and other reliefs. The Government referred the dispute to the State Industrial Tribunal under S. 3 of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The petitioner challenged the validity of the reference and sought a writ of mandamus, prohibition, and certiorari.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the impugned S. 3 of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was valid and binding in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The Court also held that there existed an industrial dispute at the time the reference was made to the Industrial Tribunal and that the reference was therefore valid. The Court further held that an order for the payment of a bonus made under S. 3 of the Act could not be held to interfere with the right of the employer to acquire, hold or dispose of property under Art. 19(1)(f) of the Constitution.
Issues: 1. Whether S. 3 of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was valid? 2. Whether there existed an industrial dispute at the time the reference was made to the Industrial Tribunal? 3. Whether an order for the payment of a bonus made under S. 3 of the Act could be held to interfere with the right of the employer to acquire, hold or dispose of property under Art. 19(1)(f) of the Constitution?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the impugned S. 3 of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was valid and binding in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The Court relied on the decision of a Full Bench of the Court in Basti Sugar Mills v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1954 All 538 (F), which had held that S. 3 was not invalid on any of the grounds advanced by learned counsel. The Court also held that the decision in Bhushan Lal v. State, AIR 1952 All 866 (G), supported the view that S. 3 was intra vires the legislature. 2. The Court held that there existed an industrial dispute at the time the reference was made to the Industrial Tribunal. The Court relied on the fact that an application had been made to the Chairman of the Regional Conciliation Board (Leather), Kanpur, praying for the enhancement of the bonus and other reliefs. The Court also noted that the Government had attempted to constitute a Conciliation Board but the attempt had failed due to a mistake in the notification. 3. The Court held that an order for the payment of a bonus made under S. 3 of the Act could not be held to interfere with the right of the employer to acquire, hold or dispose of property under Art. 19(1)(f) of the Constitution. The Court relied on the decision in Basti Sugar Companys case, (F), which had held that an order for the payment of a bonus made under S. 3 of the Act could not be held to interfere with the right of the employer to acquire, hold or dispose of property.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed with costs.
2. On 28-7-1951, the Kanpur Mechanical and Technical Workers Union, respondent No. 4, made an application to the Chairman of the Regional Conciliation Board (Leather), Kanpur, in which it was prayed :
"that all the temporary and permanent workers who have not been paid bonus are entitled for bonus for the year 1950, and they should be paid the same for this year of 1950.
That the quantum of bonus for the year 1950 should be enhanced to 6 months wages with dear food allowance.
That no condition should be attached to the payment of bonus.
That the company should be asked to pay 12½ per cent, interest on the aggregate amount of money of the workers unlawfully withheld by them."
3. After the receipt of this application an attempt was made to constitute a Conciliation Board, but it appears that the attempt failed because of a mistake in the notification with regard to the name of the employer with the consequence that the petitioner did not nominate a member.
4. Thereafter on 27-10-1951, the Governor issued a Notification, No. 5122(TD)/XVIII-40(TD)/51, in which, after reciting that an industrial dispute existed between the concern known as Cooper Alien and Co., managed by the petitioner and. its workmen, it referred that dispute to the State Industrial Tribunal which was required to determine :
"whether the rate of bonus declared by the employers for the year 1950, and the terms and conditions attached thereto need any revision ? If so, in what manner."
This reference was made in exercise of powers conferred by Ss. 3, 4 and 8 of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and in pursuance of the provisions of Cl. 10 of an order made on 15-3-1951, under that Act. On 16-11-1951, this petition was filed, and by an order of the Court of that date proceedings before the State Industrial Tribunal were stayed. The petitioner seeks, first, the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the State Government and the Minister for Labour therein, who are the first and second respondents, to withdraw the Notification of 27-10-1951, so far as it is sought to be applied to Cooper Alien and Co.; secondly, a writ in the nature of prohibition prohibiting the State Industrial Tribunal, which is respondent No. 3, from giving effect to the provisions of that Notification so far as it is sought to be applied to Cooper Alien and Co., and from continuing the proceedings thereunder, and thirdly, a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the proceedings pending before the State Industrial Tribunal.
5. The first submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that the power conferred by the Uttar Pradesh Legislature on the State Government by S. 3, U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to constitute industrial courts is invalid as it amounts to the delegation of an essential legislative function.
6. The impugned section, so far as it is material, reads as follows :
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
