LexAUTOMOBILE PRODUCTS OF INDIA LTD. versus RUKL\IAJI BALA AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
S.C.R. SUPREl\IE COURT REPORTS 1241 I think it right to add that the question as to the 1955 existence or admissibility of the concept of regional D. P.Joshi · domicile as distinguished from Indian domicile and as v. to the bearing of this on the meaning of the concerned The state of rule \vere not canvassed or suggested at the hearing ~Iadhya Bharat before us and that the Court has not had the benefit and another of arguments on these and the connected matters. If, J " -;;;; a J therefore, I have ventured to differ, notwithstanding a.anna a as • my respect for the views of the majority and potwith- standing the absence of assistance from the Bar, it is out of the conviction that the recognition, express or implied, of regional domicile by a decision ()f this Court would be contrary to the intendment of the· Constitution. BY CoURT.::.:..In accordance with the opinion of the majority, the Petition is dismissed without costs. Petition dismissed. THE AUTO~IOBILE PRODUCTS OF INDIA LTD. v . . RUKl\IAJI BALA AND OTHERS (And connected Appeal) [S. R. DAs, BnAGWATI and SYED JAFER I~tAM JJ.] Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) ti.ct, 1950 (XLVJII of 1950), s. 22-Whether Labour Appellate Tribunal has iurisdic· tion to impose conditions when granting pe1·mission-Industrial Di~ putes Act, 1947 (XIV of 1947), s. 83 and lndustrial Disputes (Ap· pellate Tribunal) Act, 19.50-S. 23-Jurisdiction of authority not only to decide whether there has been failure to· obtain permission but also to give decision on the merits of an industrial dispute-Indus- ·trial Disputes Act, 1947 (as amended), s. 88 and s. 88·A-Ind1istrial Disputes ·(Appellate Tribunal) Act--Ss. 22 and 28-Meaning and scope of. Held, (i) that the ordinary and primary jurisdiction of the . Labour Appellate Tribunal constituted under the Industrial Disputes · (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950 is appellate; (ii) that s. 22 of the Act confers on the appellate tribunal a special jurisdiction which is in the nature of original jurisdiction; (iii) that s. 23 also vests in the tribunal an additional jurisdiction to decide the complaint as if it were an appeal pending before it; and (iv) that s. 23 confers on the '. ' ··- 1955 February 3 1935 The Aidomobile l'roducts of - India Ltd. v. Rukmaji B:?la and ot:iers 1242 SUPREJ\IE COURT REPORTS (1955] workmen an additional remedy wliich ·they did not have under the Industrial Disputes Act, 194 7. · The t~o new ss. 33 and 33-A inserted in the Industrial Dis- putes Act 194 7 (XIV of 194 7) by Act XLVIII of 1950 confer dis· -~ tinct benefits on the workmen and give some additional jurisdiction and power to the authorities mentioned therein. Section 33-A en· joins the Tribunal b decide the complaint "aSif it were a dispute referred to or pending before it" and to submit· its award to the ap-. propriate Government and provides that the provisions of the Act shall apply to the awaaj. · The provisions of these two new ss. 33 and 33· A 'of the 194 7 Act correspond to and are in pari materia with the provisions of ss. 22 and 23 of the 1950 Act and are more Or less in similar terms. · A ban has been put by s. 22 of 1950 Act and. s. 33 of the 194 7 · Act upon the ordinary right, which the employer has under the ordinary law governing a contract of employment with a view to protect the workmen against victimisation by the employer and tO ensure the termination of the proceedings in connection with indus"' trial disputes in a peaceful atmosphere and the only thing that the authority is called upon to do is to grant or withhold the permission i.e. to lift or maintain the ban. These sections do not confer any power on the authorities to adjudicate upon any other dispute. Under s: 22 olthelndustrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950 (XLVIII of 1950) the Labour Appellate Tribunal has no juris· diction to impose conditions as a pre-requisite for granting permis- sion to the employer to retre_nch its workmen. Under s. 33·A of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 ands. 23 of the 1950 Act the jurisdiction of the authority is not only to decide whether there has been a failure on the part of the employer to obtain the permission of the authority before taking action but also to give a decision on the merits of an industrial dispute and grant appropriate relief which when published by the appropriate Govern· ment will become enforceable uncler the respective Acts.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.