LexGODAVARI SUGAR MILLS LTD. versus KEPARGAON TALUKA SAKHAR KAMGAR SABHA, SAKARWADI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
Der: ember 16: 342 SUPREME COURT REPORTS GODAV ARI SUGAR MILLS LTD. v. [1961] KEPARGAON TALUKA SAKHAR KAMGAR SABHA, SAKARWADI (P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. N. WANCHOO and K. c. DAS GUPTA, JJ.) Industrial Disptde-System of contract labour-Abolition by Industrial Court-]t<risdiction-lf violative of employer's funda- mental rig/zt to carry on business-Bombay J.nd,.strial Relations Act, r947(II of r947). ss. 3(r8), 42(2), 73A, Item (2) Sch. II, Item (6) Sch. III-Constitution of India, Art. r9(r)(g). A dispute having arisen between the eppellant-employer and its workmen regarding the employment of contract labour in the appellant's mills, the union representing the workmen which is the respondent in the present case after serving notice on the appellant under s. 42(2) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act made reference to the Industrial Court under s. 73A of the Act demanding the abolition of the system of employing contractors' labour and the permanent increment of employees in the respec- tive departments. The contention of the appellant, inter alia, was that the Industrial Court had no jurisdiction to decide the dispute which was within the exclusive jurisdiction of a Labour Court under item (6) of Sch. III of the Act, and that any awerrl directing the abolition of contract labour would contravene the appellant's fundamental right to carry on business under Art. r9(r)(g) of the Constitution. The Industrial Court decided that the .Industrial Court would have jurisdiction as the matter was covered by item (2) of Sch. II of the Act.and that there was no contravention of the fundamental rights of the appellants. On appeal the Labour Appellate Tribunal, held, that the Industrial Court had jurisdiction to decide the matter although it was not covered by item (2) of Sch. II of the Act. As regards the ques- tion of contravention of the fundamental right it heJcl that the question whether the restriction imposed was reasonable depend- ed upon the facts of each case and the matter was outside the powers of a court of appeal. Eventually it set aside the entire award on the merits. On appeal 'by the appellant by special leave, Held, that the Industrial Court had jurisdiction to deal with the matter. • Whatever might be the ambit of the word "employment" used in item (6) of Sch. Ill, if a matter was covered by Sch. II it could only be referred to the Industrial Court under s. 73A. A question relating to the abolition o[ contract Jabour inevitably raised a dispute relating to matters contained in items (2), (9) and (Io) of Sch. II, namely, permanent increase in the number of 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 343 persons employed, the employees' wages, hours of work and rest intervals and could, therefore, be referred only to an Industrial Court. Godavari Sugar Mills Ltd. The power given to the Industrial Court which was a quasi- v. judicial tribunal to decide whether contract labour should be Kepargaon Taluk abolished or not would not make the. definition of "industrial Sakhar Kamga• tnatter" in so far as it referred to the mode of employment an .'·inbha Sakarwaa unreasonable restriction on the fundamt'ntal right of the em- ' ployer _to carry on his trade and as such there was no contravtn- tion of his fundamental right by providing in s. 3(18) that an "industrial matter" included also the mode of employment of the .employees. CIVIL APPELLATE JumsDIC'l'ION: Civil Appeal No. 352 of 1958. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated July 27, 1956, of the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India, Bombay, in Appeal (Born.) No. 72 of 1956. G. S. Pathal~, J. B. Dadachanji, S. N. 'Andley and Ranieshwar Nath, for the appellant. D. S. Nargoulkar and K. R. Choudhitri, for the respondent No. 1. B. P. Maheshwari, for the Interveners. 1960. December 16. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by WANCHOO, J.-This is an appeal by special leave in Wanchoo ]. an industrial matter. The appellant owns two sugar mills. There was a dispute betwe(ln the appellant and its workmen with respect to the employment of contract labour in . the two mills. Consequently, a notice of change under s. 42 (2) of the Bombay Indus- trial Relations Act, No. XI of 1947, (hereinafter called the Act) was given to the appellant by the union re- presenting the workmen. Thereafter the union, which is the respondent in the present appeal, made two references to the industrial court, one with r
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.