B.B. RAJWANSHI versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

Citation: [1988] 3 S.C.R. 469 · Decided: 08-04-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: E.S. VENKATARAMIAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

.. 'y 
B.B. RAJWANSHI 
A 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 
APRIL 8, 1988 
~ 
[E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND N.D. OJHA, JJ.] 
B 
U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Challenging Constitutional 
validity of sub-section (4) of section 6 of-Also validity of Order of 
Government of Uttar Pradesh remitting award passed by Labour Court 
for reconsideration. 
-~-
In tllis appeal, the appellant questioned the constitutional validity c 
of sub-section (4) of section 6 of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 
('The Act') and also the validity of the order passed by the Govt. remit-
ting the award passed by the Labour Court for reconsideration by it. 
The appellant was an employee of respondent No. 5. M/s. Electric 
D 
(India) Ltd., Meerut. The services of the appellant were terminated by 
the Management of the said respondent. The termination of services led 
to an industrial dispute. The State Government of Uttar Pradesh under 
.-vi., 
section 4-K of the Act referred the said dispute for adjudication of the 
Labour Court, Meerut. The Labour Court passed an award and 
forwarded it to the State Government. Instead of publishing the award 
E 
in the Official Gazette, as required by sub-Section (3) of section 6 of the 
Act, the State Government passed an order under section 6(4) of the 
-
Act, remitting the award for reconsideration. The appellant submitted 
before the Labour Court that he did not want any re-consideration of 
~ 
the award. On 7 .2.1985, the Management filed an application saying 
,. 
that the case might be iixed for hearing after two months. The appellant 
F 
opposed the application. The case was adjourned to 11.3.85 and on 
I 1.3.85 to 26.3.85 at the further request of the management. In the 
meanwhile, the management moved the State Government to transfer 
the case from the Labour Court, Meerut, to another Labour Court or 
the Industrial Tribunal. The State Government passed an order trans-
ferring the case to the Industrial Tribunal Meerut. Aggrieved by the 
G 
-~-
order, remitting the award to the Labour Court and the subsequent 
order, transferring the case to the Industrial Tribunal, the appellant 
J 
filed a writ petition in the High Court, challenging the above said two 
orders. The High Court dismissed the writ petition iu respect of the 
order made under section 6(4) of the Act, but set aside the order of 
transfer. Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court, upholding the 
H 
469 
470 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1988] 3 S.C.R. 
y 
·~ 
A 
order passed under section 6(4) of the Act, the appellant filed this appeal 
in this Court for relief by special leave. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court, 
HELD: By leave of the Court, the appellant raised an additional 
B 
ground before the Court, questioning the constitutional validity of sub-
~ 
section (4) of section 6 of the Act itself, and the Court first took up for 
consideration the question relating to the constitutional validity of sub-
section (4) of section 6 of the Act. [4768-C] 
-
The questions raised before the Labour Court were very simple 
c 
ones. They had no effect on the national economy. They did not in any -t--
way interfere with the principles of social justice. No grave consequ-
ences would have ensued if the award had been published in the Official 
Gazette and the parties, allowed to question its validity before the High 
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or before the 
Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. The parties had 
D 
not been given notice by the State Government to show cause why the 
award should not be remitted to the Labour Court for a fresh consld-
eration. The order of the State Government also did not state why and 
on what points the State Government was not satisfied with the award 
and the questions on which the Labour Court was required to recon-
~ 
sider its award. [479G-H; 480A-B] 
E 
When once a decision is given by a quasi-judicial authority, it 
would not be safe to confer on any executive authority the power of 
-
review or remission in respect of the said decision without imposing any 
limitation on the exercise of such power, Even when a Court is confer-
-~ 
red the power of review, such power can be exercised ordinarily under 
F 
the well-known limitations as are found in Order 17 of the Code of Civil 
Procedure. Similarly, under section 16 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, the 
power to remit an award to the Arbitrator can be exercised by a 
Civil Court only under the circumstances specified in that

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.