Judgment

Kania, C.J.I.. (On behalf of himself and Mahajan, Das and Bose JJ.) - In these appeals the question whether the Industrial Tribunal ( Bank Disputes) had jurisdiction to make the awards has been directed by the Ct. to be tried as a preliminary issue. The decision depends on the true construction of Ss. 7, 8, 15 &16 Industrial Disputes Act. On this question, the agreed statement of facts shown that by a notfn. of the Govt. of India dated 13-6-1949, the Central Govt. constituted an Industrial Tribunal for the adjudication of industrial disputes in banking cos. consisting of Mr. K. C. Sen, Chairman, Mr. S. P. Varma & Mr. J. N. Mazumdar. A second notfn. dated 24-8-1949 was thereafter issued as follows:

"In exercise of the power conferred by sub s. (1), S. 8, Industrial Disputes Act, the Central Govt. was pleased to appoint Mr. N. Chandrasekhara Aiyar as a member of the Industrial Tribunal constituted by the notfns. of the Govt. of India in the Ministry of Labour dated 13-6-1949, in the place of Mr. S. P. Varma whose services have ceased to be available"

The Tribunal commenced its regular sittings at Bombay from the 12 to 16-9-1949. It thereafter sat at Delhi & Patna between 19-9-1949 & 3-4-1950. Further sittings were held, at some of which Mr. Chandrasekhara Aiyar was absent from 23-11-1949 to 20-2-1950 as his services were placed at the disposal of the Ministry of External Affairs as a member of the Indo-Pakistan Boundary Disputes Tribunal. Between 23-11-1949 & 20-2-1950 , Mr. Sen & Mr. Mazumdar together sat at several places & made certain awards. Those awards have been accepted by the Govt. u/S. 15 of the Act & published in the Gazette as the awards of the Tribunal. The Tribunal held its sittings in Bombay to hear general issues from 16-1-1950 & concluded them on 3-4-1950 . In the agreed statement of facts, it is stated that the services of Mr. Chandrasekhara Aiyar were not available to the Tribunal from the afternoon of 23-11-1949 to the forenoon of 20-2-1950. From 16-1-1950 upto 20-2-1950, several matters, particularly including 15 items covering, inter alia, Issues 1, 2, 3, 4, 15, 23, 27, 28, 33, 34, 37 & dealing with the question of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in respect of officers regarding bank having branches in more than one Province & banks in liquadation, question of retrospective effect to be given to the award, question relating to provident & guarantee fund & allowances to special categories of workmen, were dealt with by the Tribunal. From the notes of the proceedings of the Tribunal it appears that as numerous banks & workmen were parties to the proceedings, some workmen who had not found it convenient to attend throughout appeared & put forth their views in respect of the aforesaid issues & questions after Mr. Chandrasekhara Aiyar started his work from the afternoon of 20-2-1950 again by sitting with Mr. Sen & Mr. Mazumdar.

2. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal of the aforesaid three persons to make the award is disputed on two grounds. (1) That when Mr. Chandrasekhara Aiyar s services ceased to be available as mentioned in the agreed statement of facts, the remaining two members had to be re-appointed to constitute a Tribunal. (2) That when Mr. Chandrasekhara Aiyar began to sit again with Mr. Sen & Mr. Mazumdar from the forenoon of 20-2-1950, it was imperative to issue a notfn. constituting a tribunal u /S. 7 of the Industrial Disputes Act. The argument is that in the absence of Mr. Chandrasekhara Aiyar the two members had no jurisdiction to hear anything at all without the appropriate notfn. & that Mr. Chandrasekhara Aiyar s services having ceased to be available on 23-11-1949, he cannot sit again with the other two members to form the Tribunal in the absence of a notfn. u /S. 7.

3. In order to appreciate the correct position, it is necessary to consider the scheme of the Industrial Disputes Act. It envisages the establishment of a Conciliation Board, a Ct. of Inquiry & a Tribunal for adjudication. Rele