Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1966 Supreme(SC) 279

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.N. WANCHOO AND G.K. MITTER, JJ.
The Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd., (In all the three Appeals), Appellant
Versus
The Workmen and others (In all the three Appeals), Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos 2100-2102 of 1966, D/- 14-10-1966.
Advocates appeared
Mr. M. C. Setalvad, Senior Advocate, (M/s. G. B. Pai and Rameshwar Dial, Advocates and Mr. Rameshwar Nath Advocate of M/s. Rajinder Narain and Co., with him), for Appellant (In all the Appeals); Mr. A. S. R. Chari,Senior Advocate (Mr. M. K. Ramamurthi, Advocate of M/s. Ramamurthi and Co., with him), for Respondent No. 1 (a), (In all the Appeals); M/s. S. Venkatakrishnan and N. K. Bhatt, Advocates, for Respondent No. 1 (b) (In all the Appeals); M/s. A. C. Shubh, Ram Kishan and S. S. Khanduja, Advocates, for Respondent No. 1 (c) (In all the Appeals); Mr. A. S. R. Chari, Senior Advocate (M/s. D. K. Aggarwal and M V. Goswami, Advocates, with him), for Respondents Nos. 1 (d) and 1 (e) (In all the Appeals); M/s. D. R. Gupta and H. K. Puri, Advocates, for Respondent No. 2 (a) (In all the Appeals), Mr. S. S. Khanduja, Advocate, for Respondent No. 2 (b) (In all the Appeals); Mr. M. V. Goswami, Advocate, for Respondent No. 3 (a) (In all the Appeals).

Advocates:
A.C.SHUBH, A.S.R.CHARI, D.K.AGRAWAL, D.R.GUPTA, G.B.PAI, H.K.PURI, M.C.SETALVAD, M.K.RAMAMURTHI, M.V.GOSWAMI, M.V.GOSWAMY, N.K.BHATT, RAJINDAR NARAIN, RAM KISHAN SAINI, RAMAMURTHI, Rameshwar Dayal, RAMESHWAR NATH ROY, S.S.Khanduja, S.VENKATESHWARA RAO

The Tribunal's jurisdiction is limited to the points of dispute referred to it and matters incidental thereto. It cannot enlarge the scope of the dispute referred to it.

Headnote:
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT - REFERENCE OF DISPUTE - SCOPE AND AMBIT - TRIBUNAL'S JURISDICTION - STRIKE AND LOCK-OUT - EXISTENCE OF - TRIBUNAL'S POWER TO EXAMINE.
Fact of the Case:

The dispute arose over the claim of bonus in the Delhi Cloth and General Mills and Swatantra Bharat Mills, two units of the same company. The workers resorted to strike and the management declared a lock-out. The matter was referred to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication.
Finding of the Court:

The Tribunal held that it would be open to the parties to adduce evidence regarding the existence of strike and lock-out and if it was found that the claim was barred by the settlements referred to by the Management, the same would not be allowed.
Issues: 1. Whether the Tribunal had the jurisdiction to examine the existence of strike and lock-out when the reference order proceeded on the basis that there was a strike and a lock-out? 2. Whether there was a binding agreement between the parties which barred the Tribunal from examining the issue of allocation of capital and reserves of the company to the two units for calculating the bonus table.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Tribunal's jurisdiction is limited to the points of dispute referred to it and matters incidental thereto. It cannot enlarge the scope of the dispute referred to it. 2. The existence of strike and lock-out was the foundation of the dispute referred to the Tribunal. The parties could not challenge the very basis of the issue set forth in the order of reference. 3. The Tribunal had to examine issues 3 and 4 on the basis that there was a strike at the D.C.M. unit and a sit-down strike at Swatantra Bharat Mills and that there was a lock-out declared with regard to the former as stated in the third term of reference. 4. The Tribunal had to examine the evidence only on the question as to whether the strikes were justified and legal. It then had to come to its decision as to whether the workman were entitled to the wages for the period of the lock-out in the Delhi Cloth Mills and for the period of the sit-down strike at the Swatantra Bharat Mills. 5. There was no binding agreement between the parties with regard to issue No. 1 and the Tribunal had to take evidence to come to a finding on that issue.
Final Decision: The preliminary objection of the Management with regard to issues 3 and four succeeded while it failed on issue No. 1. Appeals Nos. 2101 and 2102 of 1966 which are from the orders of the High Court were dismissed without any order as to costs. So far as Appeal No. 2100/1966 was concerned, the matter would go back to the Tribunal for decision in the light of the observations made above. In view of the divided success in this court, there would be no order as to costs of this appeal.

Judgment

MITTER, J. : On March 4, 1966 an order under S. 10 (1) and S. 12 (5) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was passed over the signature of Secretary (Industries and Labour), Delhi Administration, Delhi referring to the Special Industrial Tribunal certain matters set forth in the Schedule annexed thereto for adjudication. According to the recitals in the order, it appeared to the Delhi Administration from a report submitted by the Conciliation Officer under S. 12 (4) of the Act that an industrial dispute existed between the managements of Delhi Cloth Mills and Swatantra Bharat Mills and their workmen represented by four different Unions and the Chief Commissioner, Delhi, was satisfied on a consideration of the said report that the said dispute should be referred to an Industrial Tribunal. The terms of reference specified in the Schedule are re-produced below :

"1. Whether in calculating the bonus table for the accounting year ending 30-6-1965 the allocations separately made by the Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. towards the Capital and Reserves of the Delhi Cloth Mills and Swatantra Bharat Mills, the two units of the Company is fair and reasonable ? If not, what directions are necessary in this regard?

2. Whether the workmen of these Mills are entitled to bonus at a rate higher than 6 per cent of the wages for the accounting year ending 30-6-1965? If so, what directions are necessary in this regard ?

3. Whether the strike at the Delhi Cloth Mills and the lock-out declared by the management on the 24-2-1966 are justified and legal and whether the workmen are entitled to wages for the period of the lockout?

4. Whether the sit-down strike at the Swatantra Bharat Mills from 23-2-1966 is justified and legal and whether the workmen are entitled to wages during the period of the strike?

2. The report of the Conciliation Officer shows that trouble had arisen over the claim of bonus in the Delhi Cloth and General Mills and Swatantra Bharat Mills, two units of the same company. The report also shows that at a meeting convened at 2-30 p. m. on February 23, 1966, the Works Committee recommended the payment of bonus should be suspended pending examination of the entire issue in conciliation or otherwise. But before this could be announced, workers started demonstration outside the mill premises of the first named unit and became violent. To quote from the report :

As the situation became tense inside the mill premises and the workers left work, the management closed down the turbine at about 4 p. m. on 23-2-1966. Later on, at about 11.00 p. m. the management put up a notice that in view of the prevailing circumstances in the Mills, it was not possible to work the mills until conditions become normal..................As there was no improvement in the situation and as workers who were inside the mills were reported to have caused further damage to the mill property, the management declared a lock-out at about 6 p. m. on 24th February, 1966...................................... The workers, however, are very much restive over the management s declaration of lock-out."

With regard to Swatantra Bharat Mills, the report runs :

" .... the situation is peaceful although the workers resorted to the stay-in-strike from 7.30 p. m. on the 23rd February, 1966 and the strike still continues. It appears that their attitude is that whatever is decided at the D. C. M. level will automatically be applicable to them as well. The workers do not seem to be in a mood to start the work unless the workers of the Delhi Cloth Mills also start work."

The recommendation in the report was that the dispute should be immediately referred to a Tribunal for adjudication along with the issue of prohibitory orders under S. 10(3) of the Act. The report notes that the Unions leaders had pressed that the question of workers claim for wages for the strike period in the Swatantra Bharat Mills and lock-out period in the Delhi Cloth Mills

Click Here to Read the rest of this document