ASBESTOS CEMENT LTD. versus P. D. SAWARKAR & ORS.

Citation: [1970] 3 S.C.R. 752 · Decided: 23-02-1970 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.M. SHELAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

752 
ASBESTOS CEMENT LTD. 
v. 
P. D. SAWARKAR & ORS. 
February 23, 1970 
[J. M. SHELAT AND G. K. MITTER, JJ.) 
Cons1i1utio11 of India, Arts. 133(1) & 226-Final order-Jnterbn a1rard 
./Jy arbitrators under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 deciding one of sel'eral 
issues-Other iss11es left to be decided later-Ati<•ard published in Gazette 
under s. 17 of Act-Such award 1vhether an interlocutory 
order-High 
Court's decision dis111issi11g writ petition against 
such cnt·ard M-'hether a 
'final order'. 
The 4th respondent \Vas a union of workmen in one of the factories 
owned by the appellant company. 
By an agreement between the 4th res-
pondent and the company a charte·r of workmen··s demands was referred to 
adjudication by arbitrators under s. JOA of the Industrial 
Disputes Act, 
1947. The arbitrators dec_ided first the dispute relating to dearness allow-
ance, leaving other disputes to be considered later. This Part I award \\-·as 
published in the Government Gazette under s. 17 of the Act. Aggrieved 
by the said award the company filed a writ petition under Art. 226 <ii the 
Constitution. The petition was dismissed by the High Court. 
The com-
pany applied to the High Court for leave to appeal to this Court. This 
was refused on the ground that the arbitration was 
not completed and 
therefore neither the award in question nor the High Court's order dismiss-
ing the writ petition was a fin'al order within the meaning of Art. 1~3(1) 
of the Constitution. Against the High Court's 
ord~r refusing lea\'<. the 
company, by specinl leave, app1ied to this Court. 
HELD: (i) Under sub-s. 4 of s. 10-A, the arbitrators submitteJ the 
Part I Award duly signed by all of them to the Government. 
As requir-
ed bys. 17(1), the said Part 1 Award was published in the manner pres-
cribed therefor by the State Government and thereupon under s. 17 (;) it 
became final nod could not be called 
in question in 
any court in J.ny 
manner whatsoever. 
Under s. 17A(l) the award became en'forceable on 
the expiry of 30 days from the date of its publication. Therefore so tar 
as the question of dearness allowance among other disputes, was concern-
ed, Part I Award became final and binding on the parties. 
It was not an 
interlocutory order in the se.nse of any dispute in respect of its subject-
matter remaining to be finally adjudicated by the arbitrators or the rights of 
the parties in relation thereto remaining pending any further determination. 
[755 B-El 
(ii) The petition filed by the appeUant-company for a v;rit of certiorari 
and for quashing the said Part I Award under Art. ~26 \\-'as a proceeding 
independent of the dispute between the parties. 
Such a \vrit proceeding 
\Vas not an interlocutory proceeding nor the order dismissing it an inter-
locutory order leaving any question raised in the writ petition to be detcr-
n1ined at any later stage. The effect of the dismissal of the \\1rit petition 
by the High Court was that the said Part I Award, suhjcct to any appeal 
to this Court. was not liable to be questioned on the ground:; aJlegcd in 
that writ petition and the appellant-company woulJ he hound l"O pay to 
its \\'~1rkn1cn dearness allowance at the rates provided in that award. The 
controversy between the parties on questions raised in the \\'rit petition 
\VI.ls finallv detern1ine<l and brought to an end as a re.;;ult of the ord_er 
.dismissal. In vie\v of the decision of this Coutt in Ranteslr "· Seth Gend~;/al 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
8 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
ASBESTOS CEMENT V. P. D. SAWARKAR (Shelat, /.) 
753 
the High Court must be said to be in error i~ holding that its. order dis-
missing the writ petition was not a fin·aI order w1th1n t~e m~an1ng of ~t. 
133(1) and that no appeal, therefore, lay therefrom tn thIS Court. [755 
F-G; 766 B·C] 
Ramesh v. Seth Gendalal, [1966] 3 S.C.R. 198, applied. 
Mohan/al Magan/al Thacker v. State of Gujarat, [1968] 2 S.C.R. 685, 
referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JUR1so1cnoN : Civil Appeal No. 2448 of 
1969. 
Appeal by special leave from the order dated Nov~~ber 2~, 
1968 of the Bombay High Court in Supreme Court Civil Apph-
cation No. 2687 of 1968. 
V. M. Tarkunde, P. N_. Tiwari, anci O. C. Mathur, for the 
appellant. 
' 
B. Sen and S. K. Dholakia, for respondent No. 4. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
. Shelat, J. 
This appeal, by special leave, raises the question as 
to whether an order dismissing a writ petition challenging the vali-
dity of an industrial award, which disposes o
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.