LexCOX & KINGS (AGENTS) LTD. versus THEIR WORKMEN AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c E F G H 332 COX & KINGS (AGENTS) LTD. v. THEIR WORKMEN AND ORS. March 18, 1977 [V. R. KRISHNA IYER, R. s. SARKARIA AND JAswANT SINGH, JJ.J Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-S. 2(b) and s. 19(3)-Scope of-Dedsion given without going into merits of a dispute-If an award-Second reference iu ~uch a case-If could be made ·within a year. The term 'Award' has been defined by s. 2(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to mean an interim or a final determination of any industrial dispute or of any question relating thereto by a Labour Court. Section 10, which des- cribes the matters that can be referred to a Labour Court etc. for adjudication provides in sub s. (I) that where an appropriate government is of opinion that any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended it may, at any time, by order in writing ... ( c) refer the dispute or any matter appearing to be connected with or relevant to the dispute, if it relates to any matter specified in the second schedule, to a Labour Court for adjudication. Under s. 19(3) an award shall remain in operation for a period ,of one year from the date on which the award becomes enforceable under s. 17A. An industrial dispute relating to the dismissal of three workmen of the appel- lant had been referred to a Labour Court. The Labour Court held that the reference was invalid because, as the workmen had not served demand notice on the management prior to the reference, no industrial dispute could legally come into existence before the reference. After serving a demand notice on the manage.ment within a month thereafter the workmen raised an industrial dispute relating to the same matter. The Labour Court rejected the employer's preliminary objection that in vie\V of s. 19, the se.cond reference was not com- petent in that it was made within one year of the first award, and decided the case on merits. The Labour Court held that the termination of the services of the workmen was illegal and ordered reinstatement with back wages from the date of termination. The employer's writ petition under Art. 226 of the Comtitution i1npugning the Labour Court's decision was dismissed by the High Court. Dismissing the appeal, HELD : The Labour Court's determination in the first. reference did not possess the attributes essential to bring it within the definition of an award. The mere fact that this order was published by the Government under s. 17(1), did not confer that status on it. [339 D] l(a) The definition of 'award' under s. 2(b) falls in two parts (i) determi- nation, final or interim, of any industrial dispute and (ii) of any question relat- ing to an industrial dispute. The basic posttJ.late common to both the parts of the defintion is the exi'stence of on industrial dispute, actual or apprehended. The 'detern1ination' contemplated by the definition is of an industrial dispute or a question relating thereto on merits. [338 D] (b) In the instant cases the order of the Labour Court in the first reference did not determine the question or points specified in government order of refe- rence, nor was it an adjudication on merits of any industrial dispute or a ques- tion relating thereto. The only question determined by the Labour Court was about the existence of an industrial dispute which in its opinion was a sine qua non for the validity of the reference. Rightly or wrongly it found that this pre- liminary jurisdictional fact did not exist because no industrial dispute had come into existee.ce in accordance with law and in consequence. the reference was invalid. There ·was, therefore, no determination of the dispute on merits on the question relating thereto. [339 C-D] cox & KINGS LTD. v. WORKMEN (Sarkaria, J.) 333 Tcclinological Institute of Textiles v. /ts Workn1en and Ors. [1965] 2 LLJ 149, A followed. Manage1ne11t of Baflgalore Woollen, Cotton & Silk Mills Co. Ltd. v. The Workmen and Anr. [1968] 1 SCR 581, referred to. rt/#· Workmen of Swadeshi l.'otton Mills Co. Ltd. v. Swadeshi Cotton A-tills Co. i • Ltd. Kanpur and Ors. 42 Indian Factories Journal p, 25.5, not a~~ved. (b) Moreover the decision of the Labour Court in the first reference did not B impose any continuing obligation on the parties bound by it. The second refer- ence was, therefore, not barred by oo.ything contained in subs. (3) or other pro- visions of s. 19. [340 Cl 2. The Labour Court was not justified in awarding compensation to the work- men for
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.