Source: http://www.rishabhdara.com/sc/view.php?case=1294
Timestamp: 2020-08-04 23:29:38
Document Index: 44131219

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 19', 'Art. 19', 'Art.\t19', 'Art. 19', 'Art. 19', 'Art. 19', 'Art. 19']

GODAVARI SUGAR MILLS LTD. versus KEPARGAON TALUKA SAKHAR KAMGARSABHA, SAKARWADI
1961 AIR 1016	1961 SCR (3) 342
GODAVARI SUGAR MILLS LTD. V. KEPARGAON TALUKA SAKHAR KAMGARSABHA, SAKARWADI [1960] RD-SC 301 (16 December 1960)
16/12/1960 WANCHOO, K.N.
CITATION: 1961 AIR 1016	1961 SCR (3) 342
Industrial Dispute-System of contract labour-Abolitions by Industrial Court--Jurisdiction-If violative of employer's fundamental right to carry on	business-Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1947(11 of 1947), ss. 3(18), 42(2), 73A, Item (2) SCh. 11, Item (6)	Sch.	III--Constitution of India, Art. 19(1)(g).
A dispute having arisen between the appellant-employer and its workmen regarding the employment of contract labour in the appellant's mills, the union representing	the workmen which is the respondent in the present case after serving notice	on the	appellant under s. 42(2) of	the Bombay Industrial Relations Act made reference to the Industrial Court under S. 73A of the Act demanding the abolition of the system	of employing contractors' labour and the permanent increment of employees in the respective departments. The contention of	the appellant, inter alia, was that	the Industrial Court had no jurisdiction to decide the dispute which was within the exclusive jurisdiction of a Labour Court under item (6) of Sch. III of the Act, and that	any award directing the abolition of contract labour would contravene the	appellant's fundamental right to carry on business under	Art. 19(1)(g) of the	Constitution.	The Industrial Court decided that the Industrial	Court would have jurisdiction as the matter was covered by item (2) of Sch. 11 of the Act and that there was no contravention of the fundamental rights of the appellants. On	appeal the Labour	Appellate Tribunal, held, that the Industrial Court had jurisdiction to decide the matter although it was	not covered by item (2) of Sch. 11 of the Act. As regards	the question of contravention of the fundamental right it	held that the question whether the restriction	imposed	was reasonable depended upon the facts of each case and	the matter	was outside the powers of a court	of appeal.
Eventually it set aside the entire award on the merits.	On appeal 'by the appellant by special leave, Held, that the Industrial Court had jurisdiction to	deal with the matter.
Whatever might be the ambit of the word "employment" used in item (6) of Sch. III, if a matter was covered by Sch.	11 it could only be referred to the Industrial Court under s.
73A. A question relating to the abolition	of contract labour	inevitably raised a dispute relating	to matters contained in items (2), (9) and (10)	of Sch.	11, namely, permanent increase in the number of 343 persons	employed, the employees' wages, hours of work	and rest intervals and could, therefore, be referred only to an Industrial Court.
The power given to the Industrial Court which was a quasi- judicial tribunal to decide whether contract labour should be abolished or not would not make the definition of "industrial " matter" in so far as it referred to the	mode of employment	an S. unreasonable restriction on	the fundamental right of the employer to carry on his trade	and as such there was no contravention of his fundamental right by providing in S. 3(18) that an	"industrial matter" included also the mode of employment of the employees.
Appeal	by special leave from the judgment and	order dated July 27, 1956, of the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India, Bombay, in Appeal (Bom.) No. 72 of 1956.
D....S.	Nargoulkar and K. R. Choudhuri, for the respondent No. 1.
There was a dispute between the appellant and	its workmen with respect to the employment of contract labour in the two mills.	Consequently, a notice of change under S. 42 (2) of the Bombay Industrial	Relations Act, No. XI of 1947, (hereinafter called the Act) was given to the appellant by the union re. presenting the workmen. Thereafter the union, which is the respondent in the present appeal, made	two references to the industrial court, one with respect to each mill, under s. 73A of the Act, and the main demand in	the references was that "the system of employing	contractors' labour should be abolished and the strength of the employees of the respective departments should be	permanently increased sufficiently 344 and accordingly". The appellant raised two main contentions before the industrial court, namely, (i) that the industrial court had no	jurisdiction to decide the dispute as	the matter	was covered by item (6) of Sch. III	of the Act, which is within the exclusive jurisdiction of a labour court;	and (ii) that any award directing abolition of contract labour would contravene the fundamental right of the appellant to carry on business under Art.	19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
The industrial	court decided both the points	against	the appellant; on the question of jurisdiction it held that	the matter	was covered by item (2) of Sch. 11 of the Act	and therefore the industrial court would have jurisdiction,	and on the second point it held that there was no contravention of the fundamental right conferred on the appellant under Art. 19(1)(g).	It may be mentioned that the second point arose on the stand taken by the appellant that the workmen of the contractors were not the workmen of the appellant.
The industrial court then dealt with the merits of the	case and passed certain orders, with which we are	however	not concerned in the present appeal.
It may	be mentioned that there were cases relating to a number of other sugar mills raising the same points, which were decided at the same time by the industrial court.	In consequence, there were a number of appeals to	the Labour Appellate Tribunal by the mills and one by one of the unions (though	not by the respondent-union).	All these appeals were heard together by the appellate tribunal,	where	also the same two points relating to jurisdiction	and contra- vention of the fundamental right guaranteed by Art. 19(1)(g) were raised. The Appellate Tribunal did not agree with	the industrial court that the references were covered by item (2) of Sch. 11 to the Act. It, however, held that the	word "employment" in item (6) of Sch. III to the Act had to be given a restricted meaning. It pointed out that the three Schedules did not exhaust the comprehensive provisions of s.
42(2) and the	subject-matter	of dispute, namely,	the abolition of contract labour was a question of far reaching and important change which could not have 345 been intended to be dealt with in a summary way by a labour court,	which is the lowest in the hierarchy of courts established under the	Act. It therefore held that	the industrial court had jurisdiction to decide the matter.	On the question of contravention of the, fundamental right, the appellate tribunal took the view that the question whether the restriction imposed was reasonable depended upon	the facts of each case and therefore was a matter	outside	its power as a court of appeal It then considered the merits of the matter and came to the conclusion that the approach of the industrial court to the questions raised before it	was not correct and therefore it found it difficult to support the award. Eventually it set aside the award and remanded the matter for early hearing in the light of	the observations made by it. Further, it decided that in	the interest of justice the entire award should be	set aside, even though there was no appeal before it by the unions in most of the cases. The appellant then came to	this Court and was granted special leave; and that is how	the matter has come up before us.
Mr. Pathak on behalf of the appellant has raised the	same two points before us. We shall first deal with the question of jurisdiction. Reliance in this connection is placed on item (6) of Sch. III of the Act, which is in these terms:- "Employment including- (i) reinstatement and recruitment;
(ii) unemployment of persons previously employed in	the industry concerned." It is not in dispute that matters contained in Sch. III are within the jurisdiction of a labour court and an industrial court has no	jurisdiction to decide any matter in a reference under s. 73A of the Act which is	within	the jurisdiction of a labour court. Mr. Pathak contends	that item (6) of Sch. III speaks of "employment" and includes in it two matters which might otherwise not have been thought to be	included in it. Therefore,	according to	him, employment as used in item (6) is wider than the two matters included in it 44 346 and the question whether contract labour should be employed or not would be a matter of employment within the meaning of that word in item (6) of Sch. 111. We do not think it necessary for purposes of this appeal to consider what would be the ambit of employment as used in item (6) of Sch.	111.
The scheme of the Act shows that under ss. 71 and 72	the jurisdiction of a labour court and an industrial court is concurrent with respect to any matters which the State Government may deem fit to refer to them; but under s.	73A reference by a registered union which is a representative of employees and which is also an approved union, can only be made to an industrial court, subject to the proviso that no such dispute can be referred to an industrial	court where under the provisions	of the Act it	is required to be referred to the labour court for its decision.	Sec. 78 of the Act provides for jurisdiction of	labour	courts	and matters specified in Sch. 11 are not within their ordinary jurisdiction. Therefore, when a registered union wishes to refer any matter which is contained in Sch. 11 of the	Act such reference	can be made by it only	to the industrial court.	It follows in consequence that whatever may be	the ambit of the word "employment" used in item (6) of	Sch.
III, if any matter is covered by Sch. 11 it can only be referred to the industrial court under s. 73A. Now	the question whether contract labour should be abolished (on the assumption that contract labour is not in the employ of	the mills)	immediately raises questions relating to permanent increase in the number of persons employed,	their wages including the period and mode of payment, hours of work	and rest intervals, which are items (2), (9) and (10) of	Sch.
11. Therefore, a question relating to abolition of contract labour	is so inextricably mixed up with the	question of permanent increase in the number of persons employed, their wages,	hours of work and rest intervals that	any dispute relating to contract labour would inevitably raise questions covered	by Sch. 11.	Therefore, a dispute	relating to contract labour if it is to be referred under s. 73A by a registered union can only be referred to an industrial court as it immediately 347 raises matters contained in items (2), (9) and (10) of	Sch.
11. Mr. Pathak urges however that matters	relating to permanent increase in the number of persons employed due to the abolition of contract labour, their wages, hours of work and rest intervals were not really disputed at all by	the appellant. It appears that in the written-statements of the appellant, these points were not raised; but the decision of the appellate	tribunal shows that one of the	contentions raised	before	it by the sugar-mills was that	the workmen concerned were not employees of the sugar mills. Therefore, as soon as this contention is raised a dispute as to permanent increase in the number of persons employed, their wages,	hours of work and rest intervals would	immediately arise.	It must therefore be held that a question relating to the	abolition of contract labour inevitably raises a dispute with respect to these three items contained in	Sch.
11. In the circumstances we are of opinion that	the industrial court had jurisdiction to deal with the matter.
In particular, we may point out that in their petitions	the unions had raised at least the question as to the permanent increase in the number of persons employed and	that would immediately bring in item (2) of Sch.	11. It is true	that the question of permanent increase in the number of persons employed, their wages, hours of work	and rest intervals would only arise if contract labour is to be abolished;	but in our opinion these are matters so inextricably mixed up with the question relating to abolition of contract labour that they must be held to be in dispute as soon as the	dis- pute is raised about the abolition of contract labour, (assuming always that the employer does not accept contract labour	as part of its labour force). The contention about jurisdiction must therefore be rejected.
This brings us to the second	contention raised by	Mr.
Pathak.	He bases his argument in this behalf on s. 3(18), which defines an " industrial matter " as meaning any matter relating to employment, work, wages, hours of work, privileges, rights or duties of employers or employees, or the mode, terms and 348 conditions of	employment. Mr. Pathak urges that	the definition of	" industrial	matter	" contravenes	the fundamental right guaranteed under Art. 19(1)(g), when it provides that the mode of employment is also included within it. Reference	is also made to s. 3(17) which	defines an "industrial dispute" as any dispute or difference which is connected with any industrial matter. Mr. Pathak therefore urges	that reading the two	definitions together	the industrial court is given the power to decide disputes as to the mode of employment and that contravenes the	fundamental right guaranteed under Art. 19(1)(g), for it	enables an industrial court to adjudicate on the mode of employment and thus interfere with the right of the employer to carry on his trade as he likes subject to reasonable restrictions.
Now assuming that the mode of employment used in s. 3(18) includes such questions as abolition of contract labour, the question would still be whether a provision which enables an industrial court to adjudicate on the question whether	con- tract labour should or should not be abolished is an unreasonable restriction on the employer's right to carry on his trade. We cannot see how the fact that power is given to the industrial court, which is a quasi-judicial tribunal to decide whether contract labour should be abolished or not would make the definition of "industrial matter" in so	far as it	refers to the mode of employment, an	unreasonable restriction on	the fundamental, right of the	employer to carry on trade. The matter being entrusted to a quasi- judicial tribunal would be decided after giving both parties full opportunity of	presenting their case	and after considering whether in the circumstances of a particular case the restriction	on the	mode of employment is a reasonable restriction or not. The tribunal would always go into the reasonableness of the matter and if it comes to the conclusion that the mode of employment desired by labour is not reasonable	it will not allow it; it is only when it comes to the conclusion that the mode of employment desired by labour in a particular case is a reasonable restriction 349 that it will insist on that particular mode of employment being used. Take, for example, the case of contract labour itself.	The tribunal will have to go into the facts	of each case. If it comes to the conclusion that on the facts the employment	of contract labour is reasonable and	thus doing away with it would be an unreasonable restriction on the right of the employer to carry on trade, it will permit contract labour to be carried on. On the other hand if it comes to the conclusion that employment of contract labour is unreasonable in the circumstances of the case before it it will hold that it should be abolished, the reason being that its abolition would be a reasonable restriction in	the circumstances.	Therefore the decision whether the mode of employment in a particular case is a reasonable	restriction or unreasonable one is in the hands of a quasi-judicial tribunal. In the circumstances it cannot be said that by providing in s. 3(18) that an "industrial matter" includes also the mode of employment, there is any contravention of the fundamental right of the employer to carry on trade. If the argument on behalf of the appellant were to be accepted it would mean that judicial and quasi-judicial decisions could be unreasonable restrictions on fundamental rights and this the Constitution does not envisage at all. We	are therefore of opinion that this contention also fails.
Finally, Mr. Pathak draws our attention to ss. 3(13)	and 3(14) of the Act and submits that the appellant never	said that contract labour employed in its mills was not in	its employment. Sec. 3(13) defines the word "employee"	and includes in it any person employed by a contractor to do any work for him in the execution of a contract with an employer within	the meaning of sub-cl. (e) of cl. (14).	Sec. 3(14) defines	the word "employer" in an inclusive manner and	in- cludes "where the owner of any undertaking in the course of or for the purpose of conducting the undertaking contracts with any person for the execution by or under the contractor of the	whole or any part of any work which is ordinarily part of the undertaking, the owner of the undertaking".	It is urged that in view 350 of these definitions, the employees of the contractors	are the employees of the mills and the mills are the employers of these employees of the contractors. Therefore,	Mr.
Pathak	urges that there is no necessity of abolishing contract labour and that the industrial court may, if it so chooses, give	the same wages and hours of work and	rest intervals and other terms and conditions of employment to the employees	of the	contractors as are provided	for comparable direct employees of the appellant and in	such circumstances it would not be necessary to	abolish	the contract system so long as the employees of contractors	are to be in the same position as the direct employees of	the appellant as to their terms and conditions of service.	This was not however the-manner in which the case was contested before the industrial court or the appellate tribunal.	All that we need therefore say is that when the matter goes back before	the industrial court as directed by the appellate tribunal, the industrial court may take this submission of the appellant into account and may consider whether it is necessary to abolish	the contract system, provided	the appellant is able to assure	the industrial	court	that employees of the contractors who are	deemed	to be	its employees within the meaning of s. 3(13) and s. 3(14) would have the full benefit of the same terms and conditions of service as its comparable direct employees.