Case: Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation Limited Vs. Calcutta Electric Supply Workers' Union &amp; Others

1. This is an appeal by the Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation Ltd., (hereinafter called the appellant) by special leave against the award directing the appellant to provide medical treatment to the families of its employees subject to the limitation that no employee would be entitled to claim medical treatment which would cost more than one months salary due to him. This award was passed in an industrial dispute between the appellant and its workmen and others (hereinafter called the respondents). The dispute related to 14 items and it was referred to the Industrial Tribunal by the Government of West Bengal onAfter the notification referring this dispute to the industrial tribunal was issued the said Government issued another notification onby which certain other items were added thus raising the total number of items in dispute to 22. One of these items was medical aid. It is under this item that the impugned part of the award has been passed. This part of the award was challenged by the appellant by preferring an appeal before the Labour Appellate Tribunal; but the plea raised by the appellant before the Labour Appellate Tribunal failed and the award was confirmed. That is how the appellant has come to this, Court by special leave against the direction in question.

Court's reasoning:
3. There is no doubt that these objections have not, been considered either by the award of the tribunal or by the decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal; but when the appellant applied for special leave to this Court it had filed an affidavit made by its lawyer Mr. Mullick in which it was specifically averred that these contentions had been urged before the Labour Appellate Tribunal and that even before the tribunal the latter point had been specificallyfacie there is considerable force in this argument; but on the other hand Mr. Kumar does not dispute the correctness of the statement made by Mr. Mullick in his affidavit filed in this Court; and so we must assume that the points were taken before the tribunals below as stated in the affidavit. That is why we cannot uphold Mr. Kumars objection at the appellant should not be allowed to raise those points beforeare unable to accept this argument in the circumstances of the present case and having regard to the context of the dispute which led to the reference. The reference clearly shows that there were several items of dispute between the appellant and its employees; and the claim for medical aid which was included in the reference by the subsequent notification also appears to be by reference to the employeesregard to the relevant facts available on the record of this case we do not think that it would be reasonable to hold that the item of medical aid which has been included in the reference is intended to cover anything beyond medical aid for the employees of the appellant. That being our view we must hold that on this reference it was not competent to the tribunals below to consider whether the employees were entitled to claim medical aid for the members of their families. This conclusion alone is enough to dispose of thisthe result we must hold that the tribunals below exceeded their jurisdiction in entertaining a demand which was not theof the reference. There can be no doubt that it is only theof reference with which an industrial tribunal can deal.