Case: Minerva Mills Ltd Vs. Their Workers

1. The Government of Mysore by a notification dated 15-6-1951 under powers conferred by S. 7. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, constituted an Industrial Tribunal for a period of one year consisting of a chairman and two members for the adjudication of industrial disputes in accordance with the provisions of the Act. It appointed the following persons as chairman and members thereof :Chairman : Rajadharmaprasakta T. Singaravelu Mudaliar.Members : Janab Mohamed Sheriff, Sri S. Rangaramiah.Two disputes between the management and the workers of the Mineiva Mills Ltd., Bangalore and two other disputes between the management and workers of the Mysore Spinning and Manufacturing Co., Ltd., Bangalore, were referred to these said Industrial Tribunal under S. 10(1)(c) of the Act for adjudication. Several other disputes were a1so referred for adjudication to the same tribunal. Till 15-6-1952, when the period of one year expired. the Tribunal had only disposed of 5 out of the 22 disputes referred to it. In the four disputes with which we are concerned the Tribunal had only framed issues and had not proceeded to record any evidence. 2. On 27-6-1952 the Government by another notification constituted another Tribunal for adjudication of these disputes and acting under S. 10(1)(c) of the Act referred all the disputes left undisposed of by the first Tribunal to the newly constituted Tribunal. This notification was not very happily worded and has been the subject matter of a good deal of comment in the courts below and also before us. It runs thusunder Notification No. L. S. 1075-L. W. 68-51-2, dated 15-6-1951, an Industrial Tribunal for the adjudication of industrial disputes in accordance with the Provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was constituted for a period of one year.And whereas the said period of one year has expired creating a vacancy in the office of both the chairman and the two members, namely,Chairman : Sri T. Singaravelu MudaliarMembers : Janab Mohamed Sheriff,Sri S. Rangaramiah.Now therefore in exercise of the power conferred under Ss. 7 and 8, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. H. H. the Maharaja of Mysore is hereby pleased to constitute an Industrial Tribunal for adjudication of industrial disputes in the Mysore State in accordance with the provisions of the Act and further to appoint the following persons as chairman and members thereof :Chairman : Sri B. R. Ramalingiah.Members: Janab Mohamed Sheriff.Sri K. Shamaraja Iyengar.Under S. 10(1)(c). Industrial Disputes Act. 1947, H. H. the Maharaja is pleased to direct that the Tribunal now constituted under this notification shall hear and dispose of all the references made to the previous tribunal constituted under the notification of 15-6-1951 and which have remained undisposed ofthe second tribunal proceeded to hear the four disputes which are the subject matter of these appeals, the employers raised a number of preliminary objections regarding the jurisdiction of the tribunal to hear and dispose of the disputes, the principal contentions being, (1) that the time limit of one year fixed for the life of the first tribunal was unauthorized and illegal and therefore the first tribunal continued to exist in spite of the expiry of that period: (2) that the Government could not withdraw the disputes referred to the first tribunal from it, so long as the members of the first tribunal were available for. discharging their duties and that section 8 had no application to the facts of this case; and (3) that the trial of these disputes by the newly constituted tribunal, even if it had jurisdiction to entertain them could not be started from the stage at which they were left by the first tribunal and should begin de novo.3. The employees contested these propositions and contended that it was competent for the Government to constitute one or more Industrial Tribunals under S. 7 and it was open to it to prescribe that these tribunals should function for a limited period ; that the notification dated 27-6-1952 was valid both under Ss. 7 and 8 of the Act and the second tribunal was properly constituted and had jurisdiction over the disputes referred to it under S. 10(1) (c) of the Act and that there was no need for a de novo trial in law.4. The second tribunal rejected the preliminary objections raised by the employers and came in the conclusion that the Government was competent to constitute the first tribunal for a limited period, that the second tribunal was properly constituted and that the references made were proper and could be proceeded with from the stage at which the first tribunal had left them. Against this order the employers preferred appeals to the Labour Appellate Tribunal, Nos. 245 to 248 of1952 They also filed writ applications under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court. C. P. Nos. 79 and 80 of1952-53, for the issue of writs of prohibition prohibiting the second tribunal from proceeding with the adjudication of the four disputes, the subject-matter of the appeals. The points that arose for decision in the appeals as well as in the writ applications were substantially the same. In these circumstances the High Court postponed hearing the writ application till the appeals had been heard by the Labour Appellate Tribunal.5. The Labour Appellate Tribunal by its order dated 19-12-1952 dismissed all the appeals and subsequently the High Court of Mysore by its order dated 25-3-1953 also dismissed the writ applications. It, however, granted the employers a certificate of leave to appeal to this Court. The employers filed applications for special leave to appeal against the order of the Labour Appellate Tribunal passed in the appeals before it, and this Court granted special leave to appeal by an order dated 23-4-1953. The result is that we have four appeals now "before us against the order of the Labour Appellate Tribunal, C. A. Nos. 140 to 143 of 1953 and two appeals before us from the order of the High Court refusing the application of the employers under Art. 226 of the Constitution, C. A. Nos. 156 and 157 of 1953.

Reasoning:
8. It is said that in the provisions of the Act it is implicit that a tribunal once appointed can cease to function only after the references made to it have been exhausted, i.e. after it has given its award. It was further urged that there is no power in the Government once it has made a reference under S.10 of the Act to withdraw it from the Tribunal and to band it over to another Tribunal. It was suggested that the members of the first Tribunal should be directed to hear these references and to give their award. In our opinion, none of these contentions can be sustained on the provisions of theis true that this notification is not happily worded. When the life of the first tribunal automatically came to an end by efflux of time, no question of vacancy in the office really arose and it was not a case falling under sub-c1. (2) of S. 8 but the situation that arose fell within the ambit of S. 7.Substantially the notification must be taken to have been made under S. 7 and in express language it says that the Government is pleased to constitute an industrial tribunal for adjudication of industrial disputes in the Mysore State in accordance with the provisions of the Act, References to S.. 8 and to a vacancy in the notification are in the nature of surplusages and are the result of confused thinking on the part of those responsible for this notification.The last paragraph of the notification makes the, matter clear beyond any doubt. It says that under S. 10 (1) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, H.H. the Maharaja is pleased to direct that the tribunal now constituted under this notification shall hear and dispose of all the references made to the previous tribunal constituted under the notification of 15-6-1951 and which have remained undisposed of on 15-6-1952.This notification does not say that this new tribunal cannot hear the dispute de novo. If any prejudice is caused to the employers, it will be open to the newly constituted tribunal to begin the hearing of the disputes from the very first stage but as it is clear that all that happened to these disputes when they were pending before the first tribunal was that only issues were framed, and if any party has any objection to those issues, it will be open to the newly constituted tribunal to reframe those issues. The point was not very much emphasized by Mr. Daphtary and is really of academic interest.