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
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
followed : M/s. K. S. Venkataraman and Co.(P) Ltd. V. State of Madras
State of Kerala V. M/s. N. Ramaswami Iyer and Sons
The Pabbojan Tea Co., Ltd. etc V. The Deputy Commissioner. Lalchimpur and others.
Dhulabhai etc. V. State of Madhya Pradesh and another
relied on : Union of India v. A. V. Narasimhalu
relied on : State of orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta
followed : State of Bombay v. K. P. Krishnan
Firm of Illuri Subbayya Chetty and Sons V. State of Andhra Pradesh
referred to : Bombay Union of Journalists and others V. The State of Bombay and another
M/s. Kamala Mills Ltd. V. State of Bombay
Bharat Kala Bhandar Ltd. (Private) Hirabai V. Municipal Committee, Dhamangaon
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.