DELHI CLOTH & GENERAL MILLS CO. LTD. versus THE WORKMEN & ORS.

Citation: [1967] 1 S.C.R. 882 · Decided: 14-10-1966 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.N. WANCHOO · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

DELHI CLOTH & GE~£RAL MILLS CO. LTD. 
I'. 
THE WORKMEN & ORS. 
October 14, 1966 
(K. N. WANC1100 At-:D G. K. Mrnrn, JJ.] 
Jndus1rial Disputes Act (14 of 1947) s. 10(1)-/ndustrial Tribunal-
limits of jurisdiction with respect to o;Jer of reference of industrial dis-
pure-"lncidental", meaning of. 
Four issues, arisios out of industrial disputes between the Manage-
ment of Delhi Cloth Mills and Swatantra Bharat Mills (two units of tho 
same company) and their wurkmcn, iw·cre referred 10 the 
Jnduslrial 
l'ri-
bunal. Issue 3 in the order of reference raised the question whether the 
strike at the Delhi Cloth Mills and the lockout declared by the Manage-
ment were justified and legal; and issue 4, whether the sit-down strike 
at the Swatantra Bharat Mills was justified and legal. 
As regard• these 
issues the contention of the ~fanagcment was that the issues were framed 
on the basis that there were strikes at the two units, and the only ques-
tions referred to the Tribunal for decision related lo the legality of and 
jusrification for, the said strikes. 
As regards issue 1, relating to the calcu-
lalion of die bonus table; the case of lhe Management was that lhcrc were 
settlements on various dates between the Management and the Unions of 
\\'\lrkrne,o, and in view of those settlements it was not open to the work-
men to reopen the matter. 
The Tribunal overruled the pleas of the 
Management. 
It held that as the existence of the strikes was disputed by 
the workmen, it would be its duty and within its jurisdiction to decide 
whether there were strikes at the Mills at all; that in doing so, it would 
not be going beyond the scope and ambit of the reference; and that the 
parties would be at liberty to adduce evidence in confinnatioo or denial 
of the existence of 1:1e strikes. 
As regards issue I, relating to bonus. the 
Tribunal held that if after taking evidence it was found that as a result 
of the settlements referred to by the Management, the claim was barred,. 
it woulJ not be allowed. 
Jo appeal to this Ccurl, 
HELD : (I) The basis of issues 3 and 4 was that there were strikes 
at the two Units and a lock--0u1 declared by the Management at one. On 
the issues as framed, it woufd not be open to the workmen to qucslion 
the exis1encc of the strikes or to the Management to deny the declaration 
of a lock--0u1. 
The parties could place before the Tribunal such facts 
;is would show that the dispute referred was not an industrial dispute 
at all, or explain their conduct or their respective stands on the pro-
priety and legality of the strikes and lock--0ut. 
But they could not be 
allowed lo argue that the order of reference was wrongly worded and 
th::it the very hasfs of the order of reference 
was open to 
challenge. 
Therefore, the. Tribunal had to examine issues 3 and 4 on the basis that 
there was a strike al the Delhi aoth Mills and a sit-down strike at the 
Swatantra Bharat Mills. and that there was a lock--0ut declared with 
regard to the former as stated in lhe order of reference. and decide on 
lhe evidence adduced, . whether the strikes and lock--0ut were justified 
and legal. 
[887 G-H; 892 F-H; 893 F~GJ 
The Industrial Tribunal must confine its adjudication to "the points 
or dispute referred and 
matters 
incidental 
thereto. 
lt is not free .to 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
I 
f 
DELHI CLOTH MILLS v. WORKMF.N (Miller, I.) 
883 
A 
enlarge the scope of the dispute referred to it but must confine its atien-
tion to the points specifically mentioned and anyihing which is "inciden-
tal" thereto. Something "incidental to a dispute" means something happen-
ing as a result of or in connection with ihe dispute or associated with 
t.he dispute. 
The dispute is the fundamental thing while some.ihing inci-
dental thereto is an adjunct to it. 
It cannot cut at the root of the main 
thing to which it is an adju_nct. [887 C-D, E-F] 
B 
Express Newspapers v. Their .Workmen, 
[1962] 2 L.L. 227 (S.C.) 
and Syndicate Bank v. Its Workmen, 
[1966] 
2 L.L.J .. 194 
(S.C.), 
explained. 
( 2) The parties were not bound by any agreement with regard to 
the first issue and the TriJ>unal would have to take evidence to come to 
a finding on it. 
[897 DJ 
c 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 2100 to 
2102 of 1964. 
Appeals by special leaxe from the judgments and orders (i) 
dated the 16th June, 1966 of thy Special Industrial Tribunal, Delhi 
in Reference No. 53of1966 (Delhi Administration) and (ii) and (iii) 
dated th

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