BLUE STAR EMPLOYEES UNION versus EX. OFF. PRINCIPAL SECY. TO GOVERNMENT AND ANR.

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 403 · Decided: 26-09-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

BLUE ST AR EMPLOYEES UNION 
A 
v. 
EX. OFF. PRINCIPAL SECY. TO GOVERNMENT AND ANR. 
SEPTEMBER 26, 2000 
[S. RAJENDRA BABU AND D.P. MOHAPATRA, JJ.] 
B 
Labour Law 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Ss. 33, 33A and 10(2A)--Complaint 
under S.33A-Filing of-Indust;·ial Tribunal-Award without considering C 
whether the act C'>mplained of is in contravention of S.33-Reference under 
S.10(2A)-Rejection on the ground of res judicata-Validity of-Held, 
disposal of application without considering contravention of S.33 does not 
operate as res judicata-Order declining reference quashed 
During pendency of certain industrial dispute, employee 'M' was D 
transferred to another department and the services of employee 'B' were 
terminated. The employees made a complaint under Section 33A of the 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 complaining that the provisions of Section 33 
of the Act were not complied with before modifying their service conditions. 
Industrial Tribunal passed an award against the employees without considering E 
whether the act complained of was in contravention of S.33 of the Act. 
Industrial dispute sought to be raised under S.10(2A) was declined by the 
Government in view of the award passed by the Tribunal. On challenge, Single 
Judge of High Court while upholding the order of Government held that the 
workmen could not avail two opportunities for the same relief after 
approaching Labour Court in individual capacity under Section 10(2A) of the F 
Act. Appellant unsuccessfully filed an appeal before the Division Bench of 
the High Court. Hence the present appeal. 
• 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1.1. The single Judge of High Court was not justified in holding G 
that an application or complaint under Section 33-A of the Act could become 
a reference to the Tribunal under Section 10(2A) of tbe Act. The only 
complaint made by the workmen was in their individual capacity under Section 
33-A of the Act and not as contemplated under Section 10(2-A) of the Act. 
Neither the learned Single Judge nor the Division Bench considered the H 
403 
404 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A scope of the proceedings arising under Section 33-A of the Act and the effect 
of findings recorded in such an inquiry. (405-G-H; 406-A] 
1.2. Section 33-A of the Act, in fact, involves consideration of two aspects 
of the matter, firstly, whether there has been any violation or contravention 
of the provisions of Section 33 of the Act and secondly, whether the act 
B complained of is justified or not. Therefore, violation or contravention of the 
provisions of Section 33 of the Act would be the justification for the authority 
concerned to entertain an application under Section 33-A of the Act. If this 
essential requirement is forgotten and if an authority decides a question as 
to whether the act complained of under Section 33-A of the Act is justified 
c or not cannot in a matter of this nature operate as res judicata or cannot 
be treated to have decided the dispute between the parties. (406-D-E-F] 
Punjab National Bank v. Their Workmen, (1959) II L.L.J. 666; Punjab 
Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. Suresh Chand, (1978) II L.L.J.I. and Syndicate Bank 
Ltd v. K. Ramnath V. Bhat, (1967) II L.L.J. 745, re~ied on. 
D 
1.3. In the instant case, the Tribunal has not focused its attention to 
the question whether there has been any contravention of Section 33 of the 
Act to enable it to proceed further to decide whether the employee is entitled 
to any relief under the Act or not. To merely consider the question whether 
the employee is not entitled to the relief without examining firstly the question 
E whether the act complained of is in contravention of Section 33 of the Act 
will be one made as obiter or as one made without fulfilling the condition 
precedent to exercise of power under Section 33-A of the Act and, therefore, 
could not proceed to give a finding as to whether the termination of service 
of the workman is justified or not Thus, the order of the Government declining 
to make a reference under Section 10(2-A) of the Act is quashed and 
F Government is directed to make a reference for adjudication of the dispute 
raised before it. (408-B-C-D] 
Orissa Cement Ltd, Rajganpur v. Their Workmen & Anr., (1960) II L.LJ. 
91, relied on. 
I 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1718 of 
H 
1998. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.6.97 of the Andhra Pradesh High 
Court in W.A. No. 521of1997. 
Sanjay Ghosh and S. Ravi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.