Back
1955 Supreme(All) 53
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHBAD
V. BHARGAVA, J.
Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd.
Versus
State Industrial Tribunal, U.P.
Civil Misc. Writ No.591 of 1953
Decided On : 30-03-1955
R.S. Pathak and S.N. Kakkar, for Applicant; S.K. Verma and Advocate-General, for Opposite Parties.
The State Government has the power to refer an industrial dispute for adjudication even if it had earlier formed an opinion that it was inexpedient to do so, provided that the State Government forms a fresh opinion that it is necessary or expedient to refer the dispute for adjudication.
Headnote:
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT - REFERENCE OF DISPUTE - VALIDITY - CHANGE OF OPINION BY STATE GOVERNMENT - POWER OF STATE GOVERNMENT TO REFER DISPUTE FOR ADJUDICATION - U.P. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947, SS. 3, 4.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner company challenged the validity of a reference made by the State Government to the State Industrial Tribunal for adjudication of an industrial dispute. The company contended that the reference was void as it did not comply with the requirements of S. 4 of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that the State Government had no power to change its earlier opinion that it was inexpedient to refer the dispute for adjudication.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the reference was valid and the State Industrial Tribunal was competent to proceed with it. It held that the notification of 8-9-1954, by which the dispute was referred for adjudication, was a fresh reference and that the earlier notification of 25-6-1953, by which the dispute was originally referred, was to be deemed to be a part of the later notification. The Court also held that the State Government had the power to change its opinion and refer the dispute for adjudication, as the necessity or expediency of making a reference may change over time.
Issues: 1. Whether the reference of the industrial dispute to the State Industrial Tribunal was valid? 2. Whether the State Government had the power to change its earlier opinion that it was inexpedient to refer the dispute for adjudication?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the reference was valid as it complied with the requirements of S. 4 of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It held that the notification of 8-9-1954, by which the dispute was referred for adjudication, was a fresh reference and that the earlier notification of 25-6-1953, by which the dispute was originally referred, was to be deemed to be a part of the later notification. 2. The Court held that the State Government had the power to change its opinion and refer the dispute for adjudication, as the necessity or expediency of making a reference may change over time.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed with costs.
2. The case as put forward by the petitioner company, is that, on 7-11-1951, an illegal strike was commenced in the mills operated by the petitioner company. Thereupon the company warned the participants in the strike that it was illegal and also informed them of the consequences that would follow this illegal strike. The strikers paid no heed to this warning nor to the advice given to them by the labour Inspector and the Labour Conciliation Officer and continued their strike up to 23-11-1951.
During this strike, acts of violence and unruly behaviour were committed. Work was resumed on the advice of the Labour Commissioner and then charge sheets were submitted against 55 workmen, who had taken part in the strike, for various acts of misconduct in connection with the strike. After written explanations had been submitted and an enquiry had been made, 30 workmen, who were adjudged guilty of various types of serious misconduct, were dismissed under the standing orders. The remaining 25 workmen were allowed to rejoin their duties after punishment under the standing orders.
Opposite party 6, the Suti Mill Mazdoor Union, Kanpur, then made a representation on behalf of those 30 dismissed workmen to the Conciliation Officer, Kanpur, stating that an industrial dispute had arisen as a result of the dismissal of those 30 workmen and asking for the constitution of a Conciliation Board. The Conciliation Board was constituted and it commenced its proceedings on 10-1-1952. No settlement having been arrived at, the Conciliation Board submitted its report to the State Government.
The Government of Uttar Pradesh sent for the representatives of the petitioner company and discussed the entire position with them. Thereafter in May 1952, the Government communicated its decision in writing, through the Labour Commissioners office, to opposite party 6, intimating that the Government considered it inexpedient to refer the dispute for adjudication as no case had been made out. This decision was also communicated to the representatives of the petitioner company.
Subsequently, on 7-2-1953, opposite party 6 again applied to the Conciliation Officer for the constitution of a Conciliation Board for settlement of the same dispute. The proceedings for conciliation were commenced afresh and were continued despite the protest of the petitioner company that the repetition of the conciliation proceedings was not permissible when the matter had been finally disposed of about a year earlier.
Subsequently, the State Government issued a notification dated 25-6-1953, mentioned above and referred the industrial dispute for adjudication to the State Industrial Tribunal and, on 30-6-1953, the petitioner company received a notice from the State Industrial Tribunal, U.P. that 10-7-1953 had been fixed in the case. Subsequently the case was adjourned to 15-7-1953. On 13-7-1953, this petition was presented in this Court and, on 14-7-1953, an interim order was passed, prohibiting the State Industrial Tribunal U.P., from proceeding with case No.78 of 1953 pending before it until further orders of this Court.
3. The petition has been contested by all
