LexBENGAL CHEMICAL & PHARMACEUTICAL WORKS LTD., CALCUTTA versus THEIR WORKMEN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
I959 Diwan Sugar(&.. General Mills (Private) Ltd. v. Union of India Wanchoo j. '959 January 28. 136 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1959] Supp. prices in these three regions and the contention that the factories in the other areas are left free to sell at any price is specious and does not merit a moment's consideration. We are therefore of opinion that in effect the impugned notification brought about no discrimination between different regions or between producers and middlemen in view of what we have said already in Re. l (b ), and consequently, it is not necessary to consider the last part of the submission under this head. There is in fact no discrimination by the impugned notification and this contention fails on that ground. There is no force therefore in this petition and it is hereby dismissed with costs. Petition dismissed. BENGAL CHEMICAL & PHARMACEUTICAL WORKS LTD., CALCUTTA v. THEIR WORKMEN (P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, A. K. SARKAR and K. SuBBA RAo, JJ.) Industrial Dispute-Reference-Government, if empowered to transfer from one Tribunal to another-Award-If can be superseded by fresh agreement-Disputes referred on fresh agreement-Reference if bad-Industrial Disputes Act, r947 (r4 of r947), ss. 2(r) and 7A. Industrial Disputes (Amendment and Miscellaneous Pro- visions) Act: r956 (36 of r956), s. 30-litdustrial Disputes (Amend- ment) Act, r957 (r8 of r957), s. 2. Supreme Court-Scope of furisdiction vis-a-vis the Award of Tribunal-Right of appeal-Constitution of India, Art. r36. Aggrieved by an Award of r95r, the employees placed before the Company a fresh charter of demands which was mutually settled by a written agreement which provided, inter alia, that the existing rate of dearness allowance should prevail which was adjustable to any future substantial change in the cost of living index of the working class. As the cost of living increased disputes arose, and in spite ol the said Award of r95r, (2) S.C.R, SUPREME COURT REPORTS 137 which was not terminated according to law, the dispute ansmg 1959 out of the said written agreement was referred for adjudication by the Government to the Second Industrial Tribunal, Calcutta, Bengal Chemical & in September, 1956. In April 1957, the Government transferred Pliar'maceutical the dispute from the Second Industrial Tribunal to the Fifth Works Ltd., Industrial Tribunal. The Company, inter alia, contended that Calcutta the Government had no power to transfer the dispute from one v. Tribunal to another and that the reference was bad as the 1951 Their Workmen Award had not been duly terminated. The Industrial Disputes (Amendment and Miscellaneou• Provisions) Act (36 of 1956) amending the Industrial Disputes Act (14 of 1947) came into force on August 28, 1956, giving authority to the Government to transfer a reference from one Tribunal to another, which was followed by a further amending Act, being Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act (18 of 1957) whereunder among other things a new definition of 'Tribunal' was given, whereby the Industrial Tribunal constituted prior to March Io, 1957, under s. 7A of Act 14 of 1947 was included. Held, that as a result of the amendments to the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Government had authority to transfer a case from one Tribunal to another. 'Tribunal' as defined by s. 2(r) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, a~amended by Act 36 of 1956, read with amending Act 18 of 1957, empowers the Government to transfer a reference from one Tribunal to another. Where, in spite of a previous award, the employees after raising fresh demands enter.ed into a new agreement with the employer which started a fresh chapter regulating the relation- ship of the parties, the previous award, though not terminated in accordance with the provisions of law, must be deemed to have been superseded. Held, further, that though Art. 136 of the Constitution is couched in the widest terms and confers a discretionary power (which cannot exhaustively be defined) on the Supreme Court to grant special leave to appeal from the order of a tribunal, but it is necessary for the Supreme Court to exercise its said discre- tionary jurisdiction only in cases (a) where there is a violation of the principle of natural justice, (b) raises an important principle of industrial law requiring elucidation and final decision by the Supreme Court, or (c) discloses such other exceptional or special circumsta
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.