GREAT INDIAN MOTOR WORKS LTD., AND ANOTHER versus THEIR EMPLOYEES AND OTHERS

Citation: [1960] 1 S.C.R. 13 · Decided: 06-05-1959 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
13 
beyond what has already been granted by the com-
r959 
pany. In the particular circumstances of this case, The Tata Oil Mills 
we order the parties to bear their own costs. 
Co., Ltd. 
v. 
Appeal allowed. 
GREAT INDIAN MOTOR WORKS LTD., 
AND ANOTHER 
v. 
THEIR EMPLOYEES AND OTHERS 
(B. P. SINHA, P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR 
and K. N. WANCHOO, JJ.) 
Industrial Dispute-Award against company in liquidation-
Appeal by managing director and auction-pu.rchaser not aggrieved by 
the award-Summary dismissal by Appellate Tribunal-Validity-
Right of appeal-Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, z950 
(48 of z950), s. z20-Companies Act z956 (I of z956), s. 457. 
The discharged employees of the Company in liquidation 
raised an industrial dispute wherein the auction-purchaser of the 
Company was also impleaded as a party. The Tribunal, inter 
alia, held that no relationship of employer and employee existed 
between the auction-purchaser and the t:ild staff who had been 
discharged prior to the purchase of the business, and the reference 
so far as the auction-purchaser was concerned was incompetent. 
The Tribunal directed the liquidators to pay compensation to the 
discharged employees. 
The liquidators were refused sanction to appeal from the 
said award by the High Court whereupon the auction-purchaser 
who was also the managing director of the Company, prior to 
its liquidation, preferred an appeal in the name of the Company 
represented by himself as the managing director and also in his 
capacity as the auction-purchaser of the Company. The Appel-
late Tribunal dismissed the appeal in limine as incompetent in 
view of the provisions of s. 457 of the Companies Act 1956, on 
the ground that the appeal was not maintainable as it was not 
authorised by the High Court. 
JI eld, that where a party to the Reference in an industrial 
dispute was exonerated from its terms, and no Award was made 
against him, he could not be sairl to be an aggrievc-d party, 
thereby attracting the provisions of s. 12 of the Industrial 
Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act HJSO, and any appeal by him 
from the said Award will be incompetent. 
Its Workmen and 
Others 
Wanchooj. 
I959 
May6. 
14 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960(1)] 
r959 
No person other than the Official Liquidator, who is placed 
in charge of the affairs of the Company in the process of winding 
Great Indian 
up, is authorised with the sanction of the Court to institute any 
Motor Works Ltd., suit, prefer an appeal or other legal proceedings in the name and 
and Another 
on behalf of the Company. 
v. 
Held, further, that there is no inconsistency betweens. 457 
Their Employees of the Companies Act r956 and s. r2 of the Industrial Disputes 
and Others 
(Appellate Tribunal) Act r950. But in construing the provisions 
of s. r2 of the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act r950, 
if there was anything in the Companies Act, r956, with particular 
reference to s. 457 which was inconsistent with the provisions of 
Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act r950, the latter Act 
shall prevail. 
Section 457 of the Companies Act r956, concerns a very 
special case, it only lays down a condition precedent to the filing 
of a case if it has to be by the liquidator of a company in the 
process of winding up. 
Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) 
Act r950 is the usual statutory provision which permits an appeal 
to be presented to the Appellate Tribunal, which otherwise would 
not lie, by any party who is aggrieved. by an award; it docs not 
either in express terms or by necessary iinplication override, 
abrogate or modify the provisions of s. 457 of the Com~·anies Act 
1956, nor does it do away with the necessity for the requisite 
sanction of the court which is a condition precedent so far as the 
liquidator is concerned to institute any suit or proceedings in the 
name or on behalf of the company in liquidation. 
In the instant case the appeal purported to be filed on behalf 
of the Company in liquidation through its managing director was 
wholly incompetent ; an.d the second appellant, the auction-
purchascr, could not be said to the aggrieved party enabling him 
to invoke s. 12 of the Act. 
CIVIL APPELLATE Ju&rsmc·rrnN: Civil Appeal No. 
447 of 1957. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and 
order dated the 1st August 1956 of the Labour Appel-
late Tribunal of India, Culcutta in Appeal No. Cal.-107 
of 1956. 
D. N. Mukherjee, for

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