J. K. IRON AND STEEL CO. LTD., KANPUR versus THE IRON AND STEEL MAZDOOR UNION, KANPUR

Citation: [1955] 2 S.C.R. 1315 · Decided: 23-12-1955 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N. CHANDRASEKHARA AIYAR · Disposal: Directions issued

Judgment (excerpt)

is.c.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
J. K. IRON AND STEEL CO. LTD., KANPUR 
v. 
THE IRON AND STEEL MAZDOOR UNION, 
KANPUR 
(with connected appeal) 
[V1v1AN BosE, VENKATARAMA AYYAR and 
CHANDRASEKHARA AIYAR JJ.) 
1315 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (Act XIV of 1947), ss. 7 and 11-
Adjudicator-Scope and authority of-Democratic Constitution-
Essentials 
thereof-Rule 
of 
Law-Benevolent despotism-Foreign 
thereto. 
Held, that adjudication by an adjudicator under the Industrial 
Disputes Act does not mean adjudication according to the strict law 
of master and servant and that an adjudicator's award may contain 
provisions for the settlement of a dispute which no court could .irder 
if it was bound by ordinary law. Thus the scope of an adjudication 
under t{ie Industrial Disputes Act is much wider than that of an 
arbitrator making an award. 
Industrial Tribunals are not fettered 
by such limitations and an adjudicator has jurisdiction to investigate 
disputes about 
discharge and dismissal 
and where necessary, to 
direct reinstaten:ient. 
Nevertheless, wide as their powers are, these Tribunals are not 
absolute and there are limitations to the ambit of their 
authority. 
Though they are not courts in the strict sense of the term, they 
haye to discharge quasi judicial functions and as such are subject to 
the overriding jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Art. 136 of 
the Constitution. 
Their powers arc derived 
from the statute that 
creates 
them and they have to function within the limits im-
posed there and to act according to its provisions. Those provisions 
invest them with many 
of the "trappings" of a court and deprive 
them of arbitrary or absolute discretion and power. 
Bene,·olent despotism is 
foreign to a democratic Constitution. 
\Vhen 
the 
Constitution of India converted this country into a 
so\-creign, democratic, republic, 
it did not 
invest it with the mere 
trappings of democracy hut invested it with the real thing. the true 
kernel of which is the ultimate authority of the courts to restrain all 
exercise of absolute and arbitrary power not only by the executive 
and by officials and lesser tribunals but also by the legislatures and 
e\·en bv Parliament itself. The Constitution established a "Ruic of 
La\\"" ~n th;s land and that carries with it restraints and restrictions 
that are foreign to despotic power. 
The courts, however, must always exercise caution and should 
not substitute their own judgment and discretion for that of such 
tribunals. 
1955 
Deamber 2 3. 
1955 
]. K. Iron and 
Stetl Co. Lid., 
Kan/NJ' 
v. 
\ 
The Iron and Steel 
Mazdoor Union, 
Kanpur 
1316 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1955] 
In view of SS. 7 and II or the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 
and U.P. State 
Industrial Tribunal Standing Orders 1951 
these 
Tribunals, though not bound by all the technicalities of Civil Courts 
must nevertheless follow the general pattern of the Civil Courts in 
the matter of taking the pleadings of the parties in writing and the 
drawing up of issues. It is not open to the Tribun::ls to disregard 
the pleadings and to reach any conclusion that they 
think are just 
and proper. 
The Supreme Court remitted the case to the Labour Appellate 
Tribunal for a rehearing of the appeals as the Adjudicator and the 
Labour Appellate Tribunal had adopted the attitude of benevolent 
despots and had based their conclusion on 
irrelevant considerations 
and ignored thC real questions that arose for decision and the issues 
that arose out of the pleadings of the parties. 
Western India Automobile Association v. Industrial 
Tribunal, 
Bombay {[19491 F.C.R. 321, 345), State of Madras v, C. P. Sa,.athy, 
{[1953] S.C.R. 334, 348), Bharat Bank Ltd. v. Employees of Bharat 
Bank Ltd., {[1950] S.C.R. 459, 497), Muir Mills Co. v. Suti Mills 
Mazdoor Union, Kanpur ([1955] I S.C.R. 991, 1001), referred to. 
CIVIL 
APPELLATE 
JuR1so1CTION : 
Civil 
Appeals 
Nos. 22 and 22-A and 301 of 1955. 
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and 
order dated the 4th July 
1952 of the . Labour Ap-
pellate Tribunal of India, Lucknow in Appeals Nos. 
391 and 392 of 1951 arising out of the Award dated 
the 1st November 1951 of the Adjudicator and Addi-
tional Regional Conciliation Officer, Kanpur in Case 
·No. 53 of 1951. 
G. S. Pathak, 
(Rameshwar Nath and 
Narain), for the appellants in all the appeals. 
G. C. Mathur, for the respondent in C. 
22 and 22-A and respondent No. 4 in C. A. 
of 1955. 
. 
Rajinder 
A. Nos. 
No. 301 
K. B. A

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