LexD. N. BANERJI versus P. R. MUKHERJEE AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1952 Dec. 5. 302 SUPREME COURT REPOR'rS [1953] D. N. BANERJI v. • P. !l. MUKHERJEE AND O'rHERS. [PATANJAM 8ASTRI 0.J., MUKHERJEA, 0HANDHA- SEKHARA AIYAR, VIVIAN BOSE and GHULAM HASAN JJ.] lnd,.strial Disp1ttes Act, 1947, s. 2 (j) and (k)-" Jnd,.stry ", u Industrial disp~tte ", meaning of~Dispu,te between municipality and its employees-Whether indi<strial disp!lte-Lr,gality of reference ./ to Tribm1al. The expression 1 - 1 industrial dispute " in the Indfl.strial Dis- putes Act, 1947, includes disputes between municipalities and their employees in branches of work that can be regarded as an&logous to_ the carrYing on of a trade or business. ' 1 Undertaking " in the first part of the definition and'' industrial occupation or avocation" in the second part obviously mean much more than what is ordi- narily understood by trade or business. rrhe definition was appar- ently intended to include ¥1ithin its scope what might not strictly be called a trade or business V~nture. Where the chairman of a municipality_ dismissed two of its employees, namely, the Sanitary Inspector and the Head Clerk, and the Municipal Workers' Union, of which these two employees were members questioned the propriety of the dismissal and claimed that they should be re-instated and the matter was refer- red by the Government to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudica- tion under the Industrial Disputes Act, and an objection was raised by tbe municipality that the dispute was bot an industrial dispute: Held, that the definition of "industrial dispute" in the said Act was wide enough to cover the dispute in question and the matter could properly be referred to a Tribunal for adjudication under the said Act. Held also, that though the power of a Tribunal under the In- dustrial Disputes Act, 1947, to re-instate its employees trenches on· the power to appoint and dismiss employees conferred on the chairman of a municipality by ss. 66 and 67 of the Bengal Muni- cipal Act and there is thus an invasion on the provincial field of legislation, the Industrial Disputes Act is not inv3ilid on this ground as it is in pith and substance a law in respect of industrial and labour disputes, which is a central subject. Profulla Kumar 1l:lookerjee v. Bank of Coni1nerce Ltd., Khulna (L.R. 74 I.A. 23), Western India Azttomobile Association v. lndi<s· t1'ial Tribunal, Bombay ([1949] P.C.R. 321), National Association A ' 8.0.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 303 of Local Government Officers v. Bolton Corporation ([1943) A.C. 166) 1952 and Federated Municipal and Shire Council Employees' Union of Australia v. Melbourne Corporation (26 Com. L.B. 508) referred to. D. N. Banerj• v. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Case No. 282 p, R. Mukherjee of 1951. and Others. Appeal under Art. 132 (1) of the Constitution of India from the Judgment and Order dated June 1, 1950, of the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta (Harries C. J. and Banerjee J.) in Civil Rule No. 563 of 1950 and Original Side Matter No. 25 of 1950. Panchanan Ghose (A. K. Dutt and R. L. Jarafdar, with him) for the appellant. B. Sen for respondents Nos. 1 and 2. S. N. Mukherjee for respondent No. 3. 1952. December 5. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHANDRASEKHARA ArYAR J.- Pratul Chandra. Mitra was the Head Clerk, and Pbanindra Nath G hose, the Sanitary Inspector of tlre Budge Budge Municipality, and they were also members of the Municipal Workers' Union. On receipt of com- plaints against them for negligence, insubordination and indiscipline, the Chairman of the Municipality su·spended them on 13th July, 1949, drew up separate proceedings, and called for an explanation within a specified date. After the explanations were received1 they were considered at a meeting of the Commission- ers held on 6th August, 1949, and by a majority, the Commissioners confirmed the order of suspension and directed the dismissal of the two employees. At the instance of the Municipal Workers' Union, who questioned the propriety of the dismissal, the matter was referred by the State of West Bengal on 24th September, 1949, to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication under the Industrial Disputes Act. Tbe Tribunal made its award on 13th February, 1950, that the suspension and punishment of the two em- ployees were cases of victimisation, and it directed their reinstatement in their respective office~. 304 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1953] 1952 The Muuicipali
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.