Appeal No 481 of 1958
Appeal by special leave from the Award dated June 29 1957 of the State Industrial Tribunal UP Allahabad in Ref
No 98 of 1956
MC Setalvad Attorney General for India section N Andley J B Dadachanji Rameshuar Nath and P L Vohra for the appellants
A D Mathur for respondent No 1
G C Mathur and C P Lat for respondent No 2
G N Dikshit and C P Lal for the intervener
March 8
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by WANCHOO J
This is an appeal by special leave against the order of the Industrial Tribunal Allahabad
The appellant is the U P Electric Supply Co Ltd Lucknow hereinafter called the company
It appears that the company used to employ Messrs s M Choudhary hereinafter referred to as the contractors as its contractors for doing certain work for it
The contractors in their turn used to employ a number of persons to carry out the work which they had taken on contract
A dispute arose between the contractors and their workmen in 1956 and an application was made on June 6 1956 by the workmen before the conciliation board
To this application both the company as well as the contractors were parties and four matters were referred by the workmen to the conciliation board namely i non grant of bonus for the years 1953 54 and 1954 55 ii nongrant of festival holidays iii non fixation of minimum wages of these workmen at par with the 191 workmen employed by the company and iv nonabolition of the contract system
Efforts at conciliation failed and thereupon the Government of Uttar Pradesh made a reference to the Industrial Tribunal under the U P Industrial Disputes Act No XXVIII of 1947 hereinafter called the Act
In this reference only three points were referred out of the four which were before the conciliation board namely those relating to bonus festival holidays and payment of wages to these workmen at par with the workmen of the company
The fourth point which was raised before the conciliation board namely non abolition of the contract system was not referred
The parties to this reference were two namely i the contractors and ii their workmen
The appellant was not a party to this reference
On August 13 1956 another notification was issued by the U P Government under sections 3 5 and 8 of the Act by which the company was impleaded as a party to the dispute referred by the notification of July 31 1956
It is remarkable however that the matters of dispute which were specified in the reference dated July 31 1956 were not amended as they could have been under the proviso to section 4 of the Act by adding the fourth point of dispute before the conciliation board namely the non abolition of the contract system
When the matter came up before the industrial court it framed a number of issues and the first and most important issue ran thus Are the workmen concerned employees of the U P Electric Supply Co Ltd Lucknow or of Messrs section M Chaudhary contractors   The main objection of the company was that the dispute if any was between the contractors and their employees and that there was no dispute between the company and its workmen
It was further objected that there was no valid or legal order of the Government referring any dispute between the company and its workmen to the tribunal and therefore the tribunal had no jurisdiction
On the merits it was urged that the workmen concerned were not the workmen of the company and there was no relationship of employer and employee between the company and these workmen and therefore the company could not be regarded 192 as a party to the dispute between the contractors and their workmen
It is therefore clear that the main question which was considered by the tribunal was whether the workmen concerned were the workmen of the company or of the contractors
As the tribunal itself says  the crux of the whole case was whether the workmen concerned were the employees of the company 
The tribunal went into the evidence in this connection and came to the conclusion that these workmen were in fact and in reality the employees of the company
The main contention on behalf of the company before us is that even assuming that the Government had power under section 5 read with cl 12 of G O No U 464 LLXXXVI B 257LL1954 dated July 14 1954 to implied the company as a party the main issue decided by the tribunal was not referred to it and the tribunal could only decide the three matters of dispute included in the order of reference of July 31 1956
Therefore in so far as the tribunal went beyond the three matters of dispute specified in the reference and decided the question whether the workmen concerned were in the employ of the company or of the contractors it was acting without jurisdiction as this matter was never referred to it
We are of opinion that this contention must prevail
As we have already pointed out there were four matters before the conciliation board including the question of non abolition of the contract system
Further before the conciliation board not only the contractors but the company was also a party for obviously the question of non abolition of the contract system would necessitate the presence of the company as a party to the proceedings
When however the Government referred the dispute to the tribunal on July 31 it did not include the fourth item which was before the conciliation board relating to the non abolition of the contract system among the matters in dispute
It also did not include the company as one of the parties to the dispute for the reference order refers only to two parties to the dispute namely the contractors and their workmen
On such a reference there could be no jurisdiction in 193 the tribunal to decide the question whether these workmen were the workmen of the company or of the contractors for such a question was not referred to the tribunal
It is true that on August 13 1956 the company was impleaded as a party to the dispute referred by the notification of July 31  but the matters in dispute remained unmended and the question of non abolition of the contract system or the question whether these workmen were the employees of the company in fact and in reality was not included in the matters of dispute by amendment under the proviso to section 4 of the Act
In these circumstances it is immaterial to consider whether the impleading of the company as a party on August 13 1956 was legal and valid or not
Assuming that it was legal and valid the fact remains that issue No 1 set out above by us which is undoubtedly the crux of the question in this case was not referred to the tribunal at all and did not arise out of the three matters of dispute specified in the reference order of July 31 1956
In these circumstances the order of the tribunal by which it held that these workmen were the workmen of the company was beyond its jurisdiction
The entire order of the tribunal is directed against the company and must therefore be set aside in whole as without jurisdiction and we need not express any opinion on the merits
We therefore allow the appeal and set aside the order of the tribunal against the appellant
In the circumstances we pass no order as to costs
Appeal allowed


Summary:
The appellant was tried by the Special judge Tiruchirappalli under section 165A of Indian Penal Code for attempting to bribe K a Deputy Superintendent of Police
The prosecution case was that in connection with theinvestigation by the Inspector of Police of a case involving the appellant the latter went to K s bungalow and presented to him a closed envelope that when K found that it contained currency notes he threw it away which the appellant picked up that thereupon K asked the appellant to produce the currency notes and the appellant complied with the demand that K then gave information to a Magistrate about the attempt made by the appellant to offer him a bribe
The Special judge acquitted the appellant
On appeal the High Court accepted the prosecution case and convicted the accused
In the High Court Counsel for the appellant entered appearance before notice of appeal under section 422 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was issued to the appellant and when the appeal was ready for hearing intimation was given under the rules to the Special judge to communicate to the appellant about the appeal filed against him
The questions for determination were 1 whether the protection under article 203 of the Constitution of India had been violated by ask ing the accused to produce the currency notes and 2 whether the provisions of section 422 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had not been complied with because notice of the appeal had not been served on the appellant
Held i that there was no contravention of article 203 as the appellant was not in the position of a person accused of an offence when he was asked to produce the currency notes and that in any case on the facts proved the appellant was not compelled to be a witness against him
M P Sharma vs Satish Chandra and others 1954 SCR 1077
considered
2 that in an appeal under section 4I7 Of the Code of Criminal Procedure under section 422 notice of the appeal has to be given to the accused but where as in the present case the High Court found on the facts that the appellant was fully apprised of the time and place at which the appeal would be heard and counsel 117 appeared on his behalf and argued the appeal the fact that a formal notice of the appeal was not served on him would not vitiate the conviction