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

1975 Supreme(SC) 300

A.ALAGIRISWAMI, N.L.UNTWALIA, P.K.GOSWAMI
Premier Automobiles LTD. : Automatic Electric Private LTD. – Appellant
Versus
Kamlekar Shantaram Wadke Of Bombay: Engineering Mazdoor Sabha – Respondent


Advocates:
A.K.SEN GUPTA, B.R.AGRAWAL, F.D.DAMANIA, F.S.NARIMAN, I.M.SHROFF, P.H.Parekh, R.C.BHATIA, Rameshwar Nath, RAMESHWAR NATH ROY, S.Bhandan, S.D.VIMADALAL, S.K.DHOLAKIA, S.V.SORABJI, SOMNATH IYER, SUBHASH OBEROI

Judgement Key Points
  • The Civil Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain suits involving industrial disputes that seek enforcement of rights or obligations created under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. [1000167490022] (!) (!) (!) (!)

  • An "industrial dispute" includes any dispute or difference between employers and workmen connected with employment, non-employment, terms of employment, or conditions of labour. [1000167490007] (!)

  • Settlements under Section 18(1) of the Act, arrived at by agreement between employer and workmen outside conciliation proceedings, bind only the parties to the agreement. [1000167490007] (!) [1000167490026]

  • The Act provides extensive machinery for settlement and adjudication of industrial disputes, including Works Committees, Conciliation Officers, Labour Courts, and Tribunals, with powers broader than those of Civil Courts, such as creating new contracts or ordering reinstatement. [1000167490007]

  • Where a statute creates a liability or right and provides a specific remedy, that remedy is exclusive, and Civil Courts cannot enforce performance in any other manner. [1000167490008][1000167490009][1000167490010][1000167490011]

  • Civil Court jurisdiction exists if the dispute is not an industrial dispute or does not relate to rights under the Act; it is alternative (at election) for general/common law rights not under the Act, but exclusive under the Act for Act-created rights. [1000167490022] (!) (!) (!) (!) [1000167490023]

  • Incentive schemes or changes in conditions of service via settlements under the Act cannot be challenged via Civil Court suits for injunction if they involve enforcement of Act rights; the remedy is raising an industrial dispute. [1000167490002][1000167490003][1000167490026][1000167490027]

  • Termination of a settlement under Section 19(2) of the Act is valid if proper notice is given, and challenging it via Civil Court suit is barred; the remedy is an industrial dispute. [1000167490030] (!)

  • Perpetual injunctions under the Specific Relief Act cannot restrain breaches of determinable contracts like settlements under the Act, which can be terminated under Section 19(2) or varied under Section 9A. [1000167490028]

  • Representative suits under Order I Rule 8 CPC cannot be maintained in Civil Court for industrial disputes involving different groups of workmen with rights under Act settlements. [1000167490026]

  • Disputes over settlements binding non-members or changes without Section 9A notice must be resolved via industrial dispute machinery, not Civil Court. [1000167490004][1000167490026][1000167490027]


Judgment

UNTWALIA , J. - These two appeals filed by special leave of this Court an important question of law as to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the suits of the kinds filed in the two cases is common. Mr. Vimadalal, learned counsel for the appellant company in Civil Appeal No.922 of 1973 followed by Mr. Nariman, appearing for respondents 3 to 6 and Mr. A.K. Sen, learned counsel for the appellant company in Civil Appeal No. 2317 of 1972 argued in support of the ouster of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. Mr. Sorabjee, appearing on behalf of the plaintiff respondents 1 and 2 vehemently combated the proposition. He was followed by Mr. Som Nath Iyer; learned counsel for the respondent Union in Civil Appeal No. 2317 of 1972. We shall proceed to state the facts of Civil Appeal No. 922 of 1973 first, discuss the point of jurisdiction as also the other points involved in that appeal and then briefly refer to the facts of the other case.

2. The appellant company carries on a big industry and owns several plants. One such plant is situated at Kurla, Bombay. In this plant there is a department known as Motor Production Department. The dispute relates to the workmen of thi






































































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