BHAVNAGAR MUNICIPALITY versus ALIBHAI KARLMBHAI & OTHERS

Citation: [1977] 2 S.C.R. 932 · Decided: 08-02-1977 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.K. GOSWAMI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
932 
BHA VNAGAR MUNICIPALITY 
v. 
ALJBHAI KARlMBHAI & OTHERS 
February 8, 1977 
(P. K. GOSWAMI AND P. N. SHINGHAL, JJ.] 
Industrial. Dispufr Act, S. 33 ( 1 )(a), whet/1er contravened by retrenchment 
of workers d1tectly mvolved in dispute pending before Tribunal-Contravention 
0! s. 33, wl1ether a11to111atically leads to reinstatement uf retrenched workers. 
An industrial dispute between the appellant and its workmen including 
the 
respondents, was pending before the Industrial Tribunal. The dispute, inter alia, 
related to the demand for permanent status of the respondeilts w·ho were daily 
ra_ted workers of the water works 
section of the 
Municipality. Meanwhile, 
without obtaining the Tribunal's prior permission, the appellant retrenched the 
re~pondents. On a ".ornplaint by ihe respondents u/s. 33-.( of the 
Industrial 
Disputes Act, the Tnbunal made an award holding that tlie appellant had con-
travened s. 33(1 )(a) of the Act, and directed reinstatement of the respondents. 
The complaint was not adjudicated on merits. 
The appellant filed a writ peti-
tion which was dismissed i11 /i111i11e by the High Court. 
Allowing the appeal, but agreeing that the appellant had contravened s. 33 
(1) (a) and that the respondents' complaint u/s. 33(1)(a) was maintainable, 
the Court restored the respondents' complaint for disposal on merits by the 
Tribunal. 
HELD : ( 1) The character of the temporary 
employment of the respon-
dents being a direct issue before the Tribuna·l, that condition must subsist and 
cannot be altered to their prejudice by putting an end to that temporary condi-
tion. 
This could be done only with the express permission of the Tribunal. 
[933-G-HI 
Tile Court further observed : 
To permit rupture in employment, in this case, without the prior sanction 
of the Tribunal will be to set at naught the avowed object of section 33 which 
is principally directed to preserve the status quo under specified circumstances 
in the interest of industrial peace during the adjudication. [936 A-BJ 
(2) I11 a complaint under s. 33-A. even ·if the employer is found to have 
t:ontravened the provisions of section 33, the Tribunal has to pronounce upon 
the merits of the dispute between the parties. For the purposes of the Act, the 
complaint under s. 33A takes the form of a reference o~ an industria! disppte 
by the appropriate authority and the same has to be disposed of rn a ltke 
ma-nner. f936 C-Dl 
( 3) The Tribunal has committed an .e~ror of 
i1:1ris~ietion in ordering re-
instatement of the respondents and declmmg to ad1udicate the matter and to 
make its award on the merits as required under the law. [93Q DJ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 900 of 1976. 
Appeal by Special Leave from th~ Judgme~t. and 
Order dated 
8-3-1976 of the Gujarat High Court m Spl. Civil Appln. No. 263 of 
1976. 
P. H. Parekh and (Miss) Manju !etley for the Appellant. 
s. c. Agarwal, V. J. Francis and A. P. Gupta for the Respond.ents. 
• 
' 
' .• 
BHAVNAGAR MUNIC. v. ALIBHAI KARIMBHAI (Goswami,!.) 
933 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Go;;wAMI, J. 
This appeal by special leave at the instance of the 
Bhavnagar Municipality is directed against the order of the Gujarat 
High Court dismissing in limine its writ application challenging the 
award of the Industrial Tribunal, Gujarat, made under section 33A of 
the Industrial Disputes Act (briefly the Act). 
There was an industrial dispute pending between the Bhavnagar 
Municipality (briefly the appellant) and its workmen before the Indus-
trial Tribunal ·in Reference No. 37 of 1974 referred to it under section 
10(1) (d) of the Act on March 5, 1974. 
The said industrial dispute 
related to several demands including the demand for permanent status 
of the daily rated workers of the Water Works Section of the Munici-
pality who had completed 90 days' service. 
While the aforesaid indus-
trial dispute was pending before the Tribunal, ·the appellant, 
on 
September 30, 1974, passed orders retrenching 22 daily rated work-
men (briefly the respondents) attached to the Water Works Section of 
the Municipality. 
It is not disputed that the appellant had complied 
with section 25F of the Act and due retrenchment compensation had 
been paid to those workers. 
On June 20, 1975, the respondents filed 
a complaint to the Tribunal under section 33A of the Act for contra-
vention of secfam 3 3 of the Act by the appellant. 
Neither party adduced any oral evi

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