Back
1964 Supreme(MP) 11
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
P.V. DIXIT AND S.P. BHARGAVA, JJ.
Burhanpur Tapti Mills Ltd.
Vs.
Industrial Court
M. P. No. 226 of 1963(I)
Decided on: 15-1-64
G.M. Chaphekar and P.D. Pathak for petitioner
Y.S. Dharmadhikari, M.V. Tamaskar and Gulab Gupta for respondent
Headnote:(1) States Reorganisation Act, 1956 – S.125 (1) & (2) - proceedings pending before a tribunal before reorganisation stand automatically transferred to corresponding tribunal in another State after reorganisation - no order is necessary - but any question whether the proceedings should stand transferred can be decided only by the High Court having jurisdiction over the area where the tribunal before whom the proceedings were pending, was working-tribunal's jurisdiction to proceed with the matter however, not affected.
Under subs-section (1) of section 125 of the State Reorganisation Act, the transfer of proceedings relating exclusively to any part of the territories which from 1st November 1956 are the territories of another State and which were pending immediately before 1st November 1956 before a Court, Tribunal, authority or officer; which on that day fell within a State to the corresponding Court, tribunal, authority or Officer in the other State or the Union territory, as the case may be, is automatic. No separate order is necessary. If any question arises as to whether any proceeding should stand transferred under sub-section (1) then according to sub-section (2) it is not the Court, tribunal or authority before which the question is raised that is competent to decide it but it is the High Court having jurisdiction in respect of the area in which the Court, tribunal or authority before which the proceeding was pending on 1st November 1956, was functioning. The question that can be referred to the High Court concerned under sub section (2) for decision is the question whether any proceeding should stand transferred under sub-section (1) and not whether the transfer of proceeding already made to the corresponding transferee Court, tribunal, authority or officer in another State is valid. But the tribunal does not cease to have jurisdiction till the decision of the High Court. Such Court, tribunal, authority or office to which or whom the proceeding has been transmitted as a result of section 125 (1), has jurisdiction to entertain and deal with the proceeding. [Paras 6 and 7
An industrial dispute between certain textile Mills and their employees was referred to the Industrial Tribunal under section 39 of the C.P., and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement. Act and was pending when the States Reorganisation Act came into force. On reorganisation of the States the dispute in regard to two of the Mills was registered by the Industrial Court in M.P. area. The Tribunal decided that the original reference must be deemed to be a separate reference in respect of each mill and therefore, the reference in respect of two mills stood automatically transferred and that it had jurisdiction to decide it. The Mills objected on the ground inter alia that the original reference under the C.P. and Berar Act was a composite reference in respect of all the mills and it could not be split up as separate references in respect of each mill and consequently the proceedings could not be regarded as exclusively relating to any part of the old C. P. and Berar which became the territories of the new M.P. so as to attract section 125 (1) of the States Re-organisation Act and so result in transfer of proceedings.
Held: The Tribunal was not competent to decide the question of transfer of proceedings and it could not be raised before it. It was only the Bombay High Court which could decide the question. The tribunal did not however cease to have jurisdiction to proceed with the reference till the' question of transfer was decided by the High Court. [Para 7
(2) Industrial Act, 1960(M.P.)Ss.1 (3), 112 and M.P. Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act, Ss. 20 and 21-no notification is necessary to bring into eect sffection 112 as amended by sections 20 and 21 of the Amending Act.
Section 1 (3) is plain enough to show that no separate notification is necessary for bringing section 112 into force. It came into force at once when the Act came into force. The amendment in S.112 made by S.20 and 21 of the amending Act of 1961 became thoroughly and integrally a part of section 112 itself. The amendments made were not "part" of any of the remaining provisions of the Act which required a separate notification for bringing them into force under section 1 (3) of the Act of l960. [Para 8
Dixit C.J.- 1. In this application under articles 126 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing an award made in two parts by the State Industrial Court overruling the petitioner's objections to the jurisdiction of the Industrial Court to entertain and decide an industrial dispute referred to the Industrial Court of the old Central Provinces and Berar by a notification dated the 22nd August 1955 under section 39 of the C.P. and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act, 1947, issued by the Government of the old C.P. and Berar. The petitioner also prays that the Industrial Court be restrained by the issue of a suitable direction from proceeding with the reference in any manner.
2. The matter arises thus: On 22nd August 1955, the C.P. and Berar Government issued under section 39 of the C.P. and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act, 1947 referring to the arbitration of the State Industrial Court a dispute between eleven textile mills, enumerated in schedule I to the notification, and their employees in the mechanical and engineering branches. This reference was pending before the Industrial Court of the C.P and Berar when the Slate Reorganisation Act, 1956, came into force. In the reorganisation of Stales, nine out of eleven textile mills, stated in schedule I to the notification, became located in the new State of Bombay, now Maharashtra, and the remaining two mills, namely, the petitioner Mill and the B.N.C. Mills Ltd, Rajnandgaon, fell in the new Madhya Pradesh. When after the reorganisation the reference came up for hearing before the State Industrial Court at Nagpur, an objection was raised on behalf of nine mills in the Bombay State that the reference made by the C. P. and Berar Government on 22nd August 1955 did not subsist and the Industrial Court at Nagpur had no jurisdiction to continue the proceedings arising out of the reference in as much as they did not relate exclusively to the territory which had become part of the territory of the successor State as defined in the States Reorganisation Act, 1956. This objection was rejected by the Nagpur Industrial Court by its decision, dated 15th May 1958, reported in 1958 ICR (Bom.) page 1350. The Industrial Court took the view that although there was a common notification referring the industrial disputes between the eleven textile mills and their employees and the subject-matter of the disputes was common, the reference must be deemed to be a separate reference in regard to each mill and its workmen; that thus there were in effect under one notification eleven references of industrial disputes between each of the mills and their workmen; and that consequently by virtue of section 125 (1) of the States Reorganisation Act 1956, the reference, in so far as it related to the disputes with regard to the nine mills was within its cognizance. It appears from the report of that decision that at one stage of the proceedings before the Industrial Court at Nagpur, a reference was made to the Bombay High Court for a decision on the question whether the proceedings, in so far as they related to the nine mills, stood transferred under section 125 of States Reorganisation Act the Industrial Court at Nagpur. According to the report, the Bombay High Court expressed the opinion that a reference under section 125 (2) could be made if a court or tribunal entertained a doubt as to whether a proceeding before it should or should not be transferred to the corresponding Court or tribunal in another State, and that there was no question in the reference made to the Bombay High Court of transfer of any proceeding to a corresponding Court or tribunal in the State of Madhya Pradesh. After this decision, some correspondence was exchanged between the Government Labour Officer, Burhanpur, and the Industrial Court at Nagpur, as also between the Industrial Court, Indore, and the Industrial Court, Nagpur. As a result of this correspondence, the Industrial Cour
