SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

MADHYA BHARAT HIGH COURT, GWALIOR BENCH
DIXIT, ABDUL HAKIM KHAN, JJ.
J.B. Mangharam and Co., Gwalior - Applicant
Versus
K.B. Kher and others - Non-applicants
Civil Misc. Petn. No. 62 of 1955
Decided On : 15-03-1956

Advocates Appeared:
Veda Vyas, Advocate Supreme Court and Puttulal Dubey, for Petitioner;
K.A. Chitale, Advocate-General, for the State;
J.P. Gupta, for Secretary,
J.B. Mangharam Biscuit Factory, Labour Union.

Headnote:

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - SECTION 7(3) - APPOINTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - QUALIFICATION OF MEMBERS - ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE NOT INCLUDED IN THE TERM 'DISTRICT JUDGE' - APPROVAL OF HIGH COURT NECESSARY FOR APPOINTMENT OF PERSON QUALIFIED UNDER SECTION 7(3)(C) - PROVISO TO SECTION 7(3) IS MANDATORY - APPOINTMENT OF PERSON NOT QUALIFIED UNDER SECTION 7(3)(A) OR (B) WITHOUT APPROVAL OF HIGH COURT IS VOID - SECTION 9(1) DOES NOT MODIFY THE MANDATORY NATURE OF SECTION 7(3) - CONSTITUTION OF PERMANENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL FOR ADJUDICATION OF INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES IS VALID - GOVERNMENT HAS POWER TO AMEND A REFERENCE MADE UNDER SECTION 10.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a factory, challenged the validity of the appointment of the Industrial Tribunal presided over by Shri Kher and of the proceedings commenced by him on the grounds that Shri Kher was not qualified to be appointed as a one-member Tribunal under cl. (a) or (b) of S. 7(3) of the Act; that if and so far as the Government purported to appoint him as the Tribunal under cl. (c), the Government had no authority to appoint him to the Tribunal without the approval of the High Court; that the appointment of Shri Kher as a permanent Tribunal under S. 7 was contrary to the provisions of S. 10 which contemplated the appointment of an ad hoc Tribunal when any industrial dispute existed or was apprehended and was, therefore, ultra vires; and that the Government had no jurisdiction under Act No. 14 of 1947 to amend a reference under S. 10 of the Act and that accordingly the memorandum dated 1-8-1955 amending the reference made on 21-6-1955 was without jurisdiction.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that an Additional District Judge is not included in the expression 'a District Judge' used in S. 7(3)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Court further held that the proviso to S. 7(3) of the Act is mandatory and it was obligatory for the State to have obtained the approval of the High Court to Shri Kher's appointment to the Tribunal as a person qualified under clause (c). As this approval was not obtained, it must be held that Shri Kher's appointment was void and the proceedings taken by him for the adjudication of an industrial dispute between the petitioner and the opponent No. 3 are also null and void. The Court also held that the constitution of a permanent Industrial Tribunal for adjudication of industrial disputes in any State without any reference to any particular dispute would be valid under S. 7. Finally, the Court held that the Government has the power to amend a reference made under S. 10 of the Act.

Issues: 1. Whether an Additional District Judge is included in the expression 'a District Judge' used in S. 7(3)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947? 2. Whether the proviso to S. 7(3) of the Act is mandatory? 3. Whether the constitution of a permanent Industrial Tribunal for adjudication of industrial disputes in any State without any reference to any particular dispute would be valid under S. 7? 4. Whether the Government has the power to amend a reference made under S. 10 of the Act?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The definition of 'District Judge' given in S. 3(17) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, is exhaustive and not an inclusive definition. Therefore, no one except 'the Judge of a principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction' can come within it. 2. The words in the proviso to S. 7(3) are negative words and are clearly prohibitory of the appointment of a person qualified under clause (c) being made without the approval of the High Court. 3. Section 7 of the Act empowers the Government to constitute Industrial Tribunals for the adjudication of industrial disputes does not contain any limitation as to the time or number of disputes with reference to which a Tribunal can be constituted. 4. The language of S. 10(4) of the Act is wide enough to permit the amendment.

Final Decision: Petition allowed.

JUDGMENT :

DIXIT, J.

1. This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a writ in the nature of quo warranto against the non-applicant Shri K.B. Kher to show cause as to by what authority he is functioning as a Tribunal under S. 7 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act No. 14 of 1947) and is exercising and performing the powers, duties and functions of a tribunal under the Act, and for the issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing proceedings before Mr. Kher in respect of an industrial dispute between the petitioner land J.B. Mangharam Biscuit Factory Labour Union, Gwalior, as also the proceedings commenced against the petitioner under S. 53-A of the Act.

2. The facts which give rise to this petition are not in controversy and may be shortly stated. The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 provides by S. 7 for the establishment of Industrial Tribunals, The relevant portion of that Section is as follows :

"1. The appropriate Government may constitute one or more Industrial Tribunals for the adjudication of industrial disputes in accordance with the provisions of this Act.

2. A Tribunal shall consist of such number of independent members as the appropriate Government may think fit to appoint, and where the Tribunal consists of two or more members, one of. them, shall be appointed as the Chairman thereof.

3. Where a Tribunal consists of one member only that member, and where it consists of two or more members, the Chairman of the Tribunal, shall be a person who

(a) is or has been a Judge of a High Court; or

(b) is or has been a district Judge; or

(c) is qualified for appointment as a Judge of a High Court;

Provided that no appointment under this Sub-Section to a Tribunal shall be made of any person not qualified under cl. (a) or cl. (b) except with the approval of the High Court of the State in which the Tribunal has, or is intended to have, its usual seat."

On 3-2-1955 the Government published a notification in the Gazette appointing Shri Kher to be "a permanent Industrial Tribunal" under S. 7 of Act No. 14 of 1947. Shri Kher is a member of Madhya Bharat Judicial Service holding the substantive rank of a Civil Judge, First Class. Early in January 1955 his services were placed at the disposal of the Development and Labour Department for appointment as a Judge of the Industrial Court under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, as adapted in Madhya Bharat by the Madhya Bharat industrial Relations Adaptation Act, Samvat 2000.

He was working as an Additional District Judge, Indore, when his services were loaned to the Development Department. Shri Kher was never a Judge of a High Court or a District Judge. On 21-6-1955 by Order No. 3274-399-14-55 the Government referred a dispute between the applicant factory and its Labour Union to the adjudication of Industrial Tribunal. The order was published in the Gazette dated 30-6-1955 (Annexure-'B' to the petition) and sets out the matters referred to the Tribunal for adjudication.

On 1-8-1955 the Government issued a memorandum No. 3247-14-399-55 amending the reference dated 21-6-1955 by adding one more point of dispute for adjudication. In pursuance of these references Shri Kher commenced proceedings for adjudication of the points of dispute referred to the Industrial Tribunal and the matter is now pending before him.

At the commencement of the proceedings, the applicant challenged before the Industrial Tribunal the validity of the appointment of the Industrial Tribunal presided over by Shri Kher and of the proceedings commenced by him on the grounds which constitute the main points at issue between the parties in this petition. Shri Kher rejected all the objections raised by the petitioner. It was at this stage that the present application was filed.

3. The applicant contends that Shri Kher was not qualified to be appointed as a one-member Tribunal under cl. (a) or (b) of S. 7(3) of the Act; that if and so far as the Government purported to appoint him as the Tribunal und





























































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top