Case: State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others Vs. Basti Sugar Mills Co., Ltd

Government under this provision of law, to sit as an adjudicator to decide a dispute that might have arisen relating to the working and actual application of terms and conditions of employment already in force. The provision was for the purpose of enabling the State Government to vary the agreed terms and conditions of employment for purposes specified in S. 3 of U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, under the pressing necessities or expediency justifying such course of action." 9. We entirely agree with Mr. Pathak that the normal way of dealing with an industrial dispute under the Act would be to have it dealt with judicially either by conciliation or by adjudication and that judicial process cannot be circumvented by resort to executive action. The proceeding before a conciliator or an adjudicator is, in a sense, a judicial proceeding because therein both the parties to the dispute would have the opportunity of being heard and of placing the relevant material before the conciliator or adjudicator. But there may be an emergency and the Government may have to act promptly "for securing the public safety or convenience or the maintenance of public order or supplies and services essential to the life of the community or maintaining employment." It was, therefore, necessary to arm it with additional powers for dealing with such an emergency. Clause (b) of S. 3 was apparently enacted for this purpose. An order made thereunder would be in the nature of a temporary or interim order as would be clear from the words "for such period as may be specified" appearing therein and from the second proviso to S. 3. Under this proviso where an industrial dispute is referred for adjudication under cl. (d) an order made under cl. (b) cannot be enforced after the decision of the adjudicating authority is announced by or with the consent of the State Government. It would, therefore, follow from this that where the Government has made an executive order, as it did in this case, under cl. (b) of S. 3, it is open to the aggrieved party to move the Government to refer the industrial dispute for conciliation or adjudication under cl. (d) of S. 3. Mr.Pathak, however, stated that under this section, the Government has a discretion whether or not to refer a dispute for conciliation or adjudication under cl. (d). But in our opinion where once the Government has acted under cl. (b) on the ground that it was in the public interest to do so, it would not be open to the Government to refuse to refer the dispute under cl. (d) for conciliation or adjudication. Mr. C. B. Agarwal, who appeared for the State of Uttar Pradesh conceded, and we think rightly, that this would be so and added that in case the State Government was recalcitrant it could be forced to do its duty by the issue of a writ of mandamus by the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution. 10. There is a further argument of Mr. Pathak which must be noticed and that argument is that there is nothing in cl. (b) which limits its operation to an emergency and that it is, therefore, not open to us to place a construction thereon of the kind we are placing. The opening words of S. 3 themselves indicate that the provisions thereof are to be availed of in an emergency. It is true that even a reference to an arbitrator or a conciliator could be made only if there is an emergency. But then an emergency may be acute. Such an emergency may necessitate the exercise of powers under cl. (b) and a mere resort to those under cl. (d) may be inadequate to meet this situation. Whether to resort to one provision or other must depend upon the subjective satisfaction of the State Government upon which powers to act under S. 3 have been conferred by the legislature. No doubt, this result is arrived at by placing a particular construction on the provisions of that section but we think we are justified in doing so. As Mr. Pathak himself suggested in the course of his arguments, we must try and construe a statute in such a way, where it is possible to so construe it, as to obviate a conflict between its various provisions and also so as to render the statute or any of its provisions constitutional. By limiting the operation of the provisions of cl. (b) to an emergency we do not think that we are doing violence to the language used by the legislature. Further, assuming that the width of the language could not be limited by construction it can be said that after the coming into force of the Constitution the provisions can, by virtue of Art. 13, have only a limited effect as stated above and to the extent that they are inconsistent with the Constitution, they have been rendered void. 11. In our view, therefore, the provisions of cl. (b) of S. 3 are not in any sense alternative to those of cl. (d) and that the former could be availed of by the State Government only in an emergency and as a temporary measure. The right of the employer or the employee to require the dispute to be referred for conciliation or adjudication would still be there and could be exercised by them by taking appropriate steps. Upon the construction we place on the provisions of cl. (b) of S. 3 it is clear that no question of discrimination at all arises. Similarly the fact that action was taken by the Government in an emergency in the public interest would be a complete answer to the argument that that action is violative of the provisions of Art. 19(1)(g). The restriction placed upon the employer by such an order is only a temporary one and having been placed in the public interest would fall under cl. (6) of Art. 19 of the Constitution. 1

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]4. We entirely agree with the learned judges of the Allahabad High Court that cl. (b) of S. 3 cannot be given a retrospective effect. But we are unable to agree with them that the State Government in making a direction to the employers to pay bonus for the years in question purported to give a retrospective operation to the provisions of that clause. The order made by the State Government in regard to bonus is to the effect that it shall be paid for the year 1947-48 to those persons who worked during that year and for the year 1948-49 to those persons who worked in that year. This payment was directed to be made within six weeks of the making of the order. By giving this direction the State Government did no more than attach a condition to the employment of workmen in the year 1950-51 in sugar factories affected by the order. That is all that it has done. Mr. Pathak contended that bonus has certain attributes of a wage and wage being a matter of contract can only be a term of employment agreed to between the employer and the employee but could not be a condition of employment which could be imposed by a Government acting under a statute.We agree that normally wage is a term of contract but it would be futile to say that it cannot be made a condition of employment. The Minimum Wages Act provides for the fixation of a statutory minimum wage payable to a worker in respect of certain types of employments and is an instance of wage being made a condition of employment. That apart, whether wage or bonus is a terms of a contract or a condition of employment it is clear that section 3 empowers the State Government to require the employers and workmen or both to observe any term or condition of employment for a specified period. Since the law enables the State Government to impose a term it is apparent that the legislature which enacted that law did not import into that word a consensual sense. We cannot, therefore, accept the argument that under cl. (b) it was not open to the State Government to make the payment of bonus to workmen a condition of their employment in future and thus augment their past wagesThe effect of that order is merely to require the employer to pay an additional sum of money to his employees as a term and condition of work in futureThe answer to that is that under the order of the Government such bonus is payable only to those workers who had worked during the years in question and not to new employees. It is further to be borne in mind that in the dispute in question the employees were bargaining in their collective capacity and, therefore, the question whether the personnel forming the employees of the factories in July, 1950, when the order was made by the Government, and in the years 1947-48 and 1948-49 to which the dispute relates was the same is quite immaterialWe also concur with the observations of the learned judge that by coming to the conclusion that the State Government was not passing an order which will have retrospective effect but was passing an order which was to ensure that the workmen to be employed in the year 1950 would work in a contented manner. It must not be forgotten that the dispute was in the present, that is, it existed when the impugned order was made, though its origin was in the past. What the order did was to resolve that dispute and this it could only do by removing its cause9. We entirely agree with Mr. Pathak that the normal way of dealing with an industrial dispute under the Act would be to have it dealt with judicially either by conciliation or by adjudication and that judicial process cannot be circumvented by resort to executive action. The proceeding before a conciliator or an adjudicator is, in a sense, a judicial proceeding because therein both the parties to the dispute would have the opportunity of being heard and of placing the relevant material before the conciliator or adjudicator. But there may be an emergency and the Government may have to act promptly "for securing the public safety or convenience or the maintenance of public order or supplies and services essential to the life of the community or maintaining employment." It was, therefore, necessary to arm it with additional powers for dealing with such an emergency. Clause (b) of S. 3 was apparently enacted for this purpose. An order made thereunder would be in the nature of a temporary or interim order as would be clear from the words "for such period as may be specified" appearing therein and from the second proviso to S3. Under this proviso where an industrial dispute is referred for adjudication under cl. (d) an order made under cl. (b) cannot be enforced after the decision of the adjudicating authority is announced by or with the consent of the State Government. It would, therefore, follow from this that where the Government has made an executive order, as it did in this case, under cl. (b) of S. 3, it is open to the aggrieved party to move the Government to refer the industrial dispute for conciliation or adjudication under cl. (d) of S. 31. In our view, therefore, the provisions of cl. (b) of S. 3 are not in any sense alternative to those of cl. (d) and that the former could be availed of by the State Government only in an emergency and as a temporary measure. The right of the employer or the employee to require the dispute to be referred for conciliation or adjudication would still be there and could be exercised by them by taking appropriate steps. Upon the construction we place on the provisions of cl. (b) of S. 3 it is clear that no question of discrimination at all arises. Similarly the fact that action was taken by the Government in an emergency in the public interest would be a complete answer to the argument that that action is violative of the provisions of Art. 19(1)(g). The restriction placed upon the employer by such an order is only a temporary one and having been placed in the public interest would fall under cl. (6) of Art. 19 of the Constitution.