LexHOCHTIEF GAMMON versus INDUSTRIAL LRIBUNAL, BHUBANESHWAR, ORISSA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1964 ..Aprill 596 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [196f) HOCHTIEF GAMMON V. INDUSTRIAL l'RIBUNAL, BHUBANESHWAR, ORISSA AND ORS. [P. 13. GAJENDRAGADKAR, 'C. J., K. N. WANCHOO AND K. C. DAS, GUPTA, JJ.] Industrial Dispute-Addition and Summoning of Partie$- Reference-Powers of Industrial Tribunal-Test and Limita- tion-Who$e liability to pay Workmen's claim-Who is Employer-Disputes, whether different and substantial-Indus- trial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Ss., 10, 18. On reference of an Industrial Dispute between the appel- lants and the respondents, its workmen, the office of the Indus- trial Tribunal issued notice not only to the appellant and its workmen, the respondents but also to Hindustan Steel Ltd. This was done apparently because a copy of the notification of the Government containing the order of reference had been served on the said Hindustan Steel Ltd. The Hindustan Steel Ltd. appeared .and urged that it was not concerned or interested in the dispute and should not be added a party to the reference. The appellant contended, inter alia, that the interests of Hindus- tan Steel Ltd. and the appellant were common in the pending proceedings, and the material documents which may have to be proved were with the said concern. The Tribunal considered the question and held that it would decide the matter later; meanwhile it directed Hindustan Steel to be present during the hearing of the reference on merits. The appellant, who was dissatisfied with this order as it wanted a specific direction to add Hindustan Steel as a party to the reference, moved the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution. This writ peti- tion failed as the High Court held that the petition was pre- mature as the Tribunal had not yet passed a final order under s. 18 (3)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act. On appeal by special Leave: Held: (i) S. 18(b) as it originally stood postulates that the Tribunal had an implied power to summon parties, other than parties to the industrial dispute to appear in the proceed- ings before it. (ii) Where certain points of dispute have been referred to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication, it may while dealing with the said points deal with matters incidental thereto, and than parties to the industrial dispute to appear in the proceed- the Tribunal feels that some persons who are not joined to the reference should be brought before it, it may be able to make an order in that behalf under s. 18 .(3)(b) as it now stands. (iii) Section 10(5) has now conferred power on the appro- priaJte Government to add to the reference other establish- ments, groups or classes of establishments of a similar nature, if it is satisfied that establishments are likely to be interested in, ·or affected by such dispute. The appropriate Government may add them to the said reference either at the time when the reference is initially made or during the pendency of the said reference proceedings; but in every case, such addi- tions can be made before the award is submitted. Now, if su.ch ' • -· _ .. 7 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 597 persons are added to the reference, the Industrial Tribunal may 1964 in exercise of Hs powers under s. 18 (3)(b) summon them to HochtiifGam"'°" appear before 1t. v. (iv) The material words in s. 18 (3)(b) are the same as they In~';:t~alT~;"'l, were originally included in s. 18(b), and so, the implied power Ori,.~a':::z" Othd• which could be exercised by the Industrial Tribunal under s. 18(b) can now be exercised by it under s. 18(3}(b). If the Tribunal thinks that the parties who were summoned to appear before it were so summoned without proper cause, it may record its opinion to that effect and then the award which it pronounces would not be binding on them. (v) What the Tribunal can consider in addition to the dis- putes specified in the order of reference, are only matters inci- dental to the said disputes and that naturally suggests certain obvious limitations on the implied power of the Tribunal to add parties to the reference before it, purporting to exercise its implied power under s. 18(3) (b). If it appears to the Industrial Tribunal that a party named in the order of reference does not completely or adequately represent the interest either of the employer or of the employee, it may direct the joining of other persons necessary to represent such interest. Similarly if the union specified in the reference does not represent al
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.