Back
2000 Supreme(MP) 150
2000 (2) JLJ 97
(FULL BENCH)
S.C. Pandey, Dipak Misra and S.S. Jha, JJ.
Kedia Distilleries, Ltd. v. General Secretary, Chhattisgarh Chemical Mill
Mazdoor Sangh and others
Writ Petn. No. 5063 of 1999: Decided on 18.2.2000.
R.K. Gupta for petitioner; A.G. Dhande with Sujoy Paul for respondent No.1.
Ajay Mishra, Deputy Advocate General for respondent 3-State,
G.M. Chaphekar and P.S. Nair, amicus curiae.
Headnote:(1) Constitution of India -- Arts. 227, 323A and 323B -- order of Tribunal constituted either under Art. 323 A or 323 B -- writ petition against such order -- shall be heard by Division Bench of the High Court. AIR 1997 SC 1125 followed. [ Paras 4-& 6
(2) Constitution of India -- Arts. 226, 227, 32, 323A (2)(d) and 323B (3) (d) -- powers of the High Court under Arts. 226 and 227 -- powers of Supreme Court under Art. 32 -- are of judicial review and are of basic structure -- cannot he altered, amended or abridged even by constitutional amendment. AIR 1997 SC 1125 followed. [ Para 7
(3) Constitution of India -- Arts. 323A and 323B -- Tribunals constituted under -- possess the jurisdiction to test constitutional ‘validity of statutory provision. AIR 1997 5C 1125 followed. [Para 8
(4) Constitution of India -- Arts. 31(2)(3), 323A and 323B -- power of Supreme Court to test constitutional validity of any statutory provision -- can he conferred by Parliament to any Tribunal constituted under Art. 323A or 323-B. [Para 8
(5) Constitution of India -- Arts. 323A. 323B, 226 and 227 :- order of Tribunal constituted either under Art. 323A or 323B -- writ petition against such order -- shall be heard by Division Bench or High Court -- order of other Tribunals -- shall be heard as per roster. 1999 (114) ELT 826 (MP) and LPA 332 of 1999 overruled. AIR 1997 SC 1125 followed. [Paras 10, 11, & 14
¼1½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq- 227] 323d rFkk 323[k && vuq- 323d ds v/khu vFkok vuq- 323[k ds v/khu xfBr vf/kdj.k dk vkns‘k && ,sls vkns‘k ds fo#) fjV ;kfpdk && mPp U;k;ky; dh [kaM U;k;ihB }kjk lquh tk,xhA , vkb vkj 1997 ,l lh 1125 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 4 ,oa 6À
¼2½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq- 226] 227] 32] 323d¼2½¼?k½ rFkk 323[k¼3½¼?k½ && vuq- 226 rFkk 227 ds v/khu mPp U;k;ky; dh ‘kfDr;k¡ && vuq- 32 ds v/khu mPpre U;k;ky; dh ‘kfDr;k¡ && U;kf;d iqufoZyksdu rFkk vk/kkjHkwr lajpuk dh gS && lafo/kku esa la‘kks/ku }kjk Hkh mikarfjr la‘kksf/kr vFkok laf{kIr ugha dh tk ldrhA , vkb vkj 1997 ,l lh 1125 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 7À
¼3½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq- 323d rFkk 323[k && ds v/khu xfBr vf/kdj.k && dkuwuh mica/k dh laoS/kkfud fof/kekU;rk dh vf/kdkfjrk mudksa izkIr gSA , vkb vkj 1997 ,l lh 1125 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 8À
¼4½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq- 32¼2½¼3½] 323d rFkk 323[k && fdlh dkuwuh mica/k dh laoS/kkfud fof/kekU;rk dk ijh{k.k djus dh mPpre U;k;ky; dh ‘kfDr && laln }kjk] vuq- 232d vFkok 323[k d v/khu xfBr fdlh vf/kdj.k dks iznÙk dh tk ldrh gSA ¿ iSjk 8À
¼5½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq- 323d] 323[k 226 rFkk 227 && vuq- 323d vFkok 323[k ds v/khu xfBr vf/kdj.k dk vkns‘k && ,sls vkns‘k ds fo#) fjV ;kfpdk && mPp U;k;ky; dh [kaM U;k;ihB }kjk lquh tk,xh && vU; vf/kdj.kksa dk vkns‘k && jksLVj ds vuqlkj lquk tk,xkA 1999 ¼114½ bZ ,y Vh 826 ¼e-iz-½ rFkk ySVlZ isVsaV vihy Ø- 332 lu~ 1992 myVs x,A , vkb vkj 1997 ,l lh 1125 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 10] 11 ,oa 14À
Pandey, J. -- 1. This matter has been placed before this Full Bench on a reference made by one of us (Honourable Dipak Misra. J.) on the following question framed by him :-
"Whether the decision rendered in the cases of Neo Sacks Limited v. CEGAT. New Delhi. 1999 (114) ELT 826 (MP) and M/s. Kedia Distilleries Limited v. M/s. Sumit Usha Martin Finance Limited and others. L.P.A. No. 332/99, decided on 11.1.2000. lay down the correct law to the effect that the matters arising out of all the Tribunals are to be heard by a Division Bench of this Court ?"
2. The petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is against the award made by the Industrial Court (Bench at Raipur), on a reference made by the State Government under Section 51(1) of Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act 1960. which was placed before a Single Bench of this Court as per the roster prepared by Honourable the Chief Justice. It appears that the learned counsel for the petitioner-management raised an objection to the effect that according to the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Neo Sacks Limited v. CEGAT, New Delhi. 1999 (114) ELT 826 (MP) and in M/s. Kedia Distilleries Limited v. M/s. Swnit Usha Matin Finance Limited and others. L.P.A. No_ 332/99. decided on 11.01.2000, the matter cannot be heard by a Single Judge. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and other counsel mentioned in the order, amicus curiae, the learned Single Judge referred the above question for constitution of a larger Bench and that is how this matter comes before us.
3. From the facts indicated above. it is clear that the mailer arose from an award passed by a Tribunal which was constituted under an enactment much prior to the 42nd amendment in the Constitution of India, whereby Articles 323A and 323B were added with effect from 3.1.1977. The Industrial Court which delivered the award under challenge in this case is a Tribunal constituted under Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act 1960. It is obvious that it is a pre-existing Tribunal and was not constituted under Article 323-B of the Constitution by the State Legislature.
4. The answer to the question framed before us will depend upon if the view taken in the two cases-Neo Sacks Limited (supra) and M/s. Kedia Distilleries. Limited (supra) is correct in holding that all the Tribunals constituted under Article 323A or under Article 323B of the Constitution are subjected to jurisdiction of a Division Bench of a High Court in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and others. reported in AIR 1977 SC 1125 = ( 1997) 3 SCC 261.
5. We have heard Sarvashri R.K. Gupta. Learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri A.G. Dhande. Advocate with Shri Sujoy Paul counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Shri Ajay Mishra Deputy Advocate General for the respondent No.3-State. We also requested Shri G.M. Chaphekar and Shri P.S. Nair. Senior Counsel. who were present in the Court, amicus curiae to address us on the question involved in this case. They kindly acceded to our request for which we are very grateful. All the counsel in this case, however, argued that the reference should he accepted.
6. The precise question for determination is -- If the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar (supra) directed that the mailers arising out of orders passed by all the Tribunals irrespective of the fact that they were constituted under Article 323A or under Article 323B of the Constitution. should be heard by a Division Bench, or the directions of their Lordships were confined only to orders of those Tribunals which were specil1cally constituted under Article 323A or under Article 323B of the Constitution. It is, therefore, necessary to refer to the issues which were considered by the Constitution Bench. Thus, it would he apt to quote the broad issues outlined in paragraph 1 of that order as follows : --
(1) Whether the power conf
