LexJASWANT SUGAR MILLS LTD., MEERUT versus LAKSHMICHAND AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1962 !Cham Chand v. Union o}· India Das Gupta, J. 1962 September 25. 242 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP. valid and consequently, in rejecting the appellant's revisional application. The appeal is dismissed. But, in view of the circumstances of the case we make no order as to costs. Though the appellant has failed in this appeal which was brought by him as a pauper, we make no order against him to pay the court-fee which would have been paid by him if he had not been permitted to appeal as a pauper. Appeal dismissed. JASWANT SUGAR MILLS LTD., MEERUT v. LAKSHMICHAND AND OTHERS (B. P. SINHA, c. J., P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. N. WANCHOO, K. C. DAS GUPTA and J. C. SHAH, JJ.) Indu.•trial Dispute-Dismi.sal of workmen-Application for permi>Bion before Conciliation OJ!ker-Direction of Conci- liation Officer-Appeal to Appellate Tribunal, if maintainab/,e- Grant of special leave-Competence-U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (U. P. 28 of 1947), 88. 3, 8-Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) A.ct, 1950 (48 of 1950), 88. 2 (c) cl. (iii), 4--Constitution of India, Art. 136. The workmen of the appellant company resorted. to direct action in order to enforce their demands 'for bonus, leave etc. Thereupon, the company served charge sheets upon sixty-three workmen. The enquiry officer who investigated the charges found that all the workmen were guilty of sabotage and slow- down strike and that they were liable to be dismissed. But as at that time a dispute between the company and its workmen relating to payment of bonus was pending before the Industrial Tribunal, the conditions of service of the workmen could not, by virtue of cl. 29 of the order issued in 1954 by the Governor I S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 243 ofUttar Pradesh under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, be altered nor the workmen discharged without the previous permission of the Conciliation Offi~er. An application was made to the Conciliation Officer for permission to disri1iss the workmen. The Officer granted permission in respect of only eleven workmen on the ground that the rest of the workmen were mere passive participants in the go-slow campaign. The compat'\" preferred an appeal to the Labour Appellate Tribunal but it was dismissed as incompetent on the ground that the C'.onciliation Officer wa'i not an authority within the meaning of s. 2 (c) (iii) of the Industrial disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950. The company then obtained special leave to appeal to the Supre1ne ~ourt against the direction of the Conciliation Officer and also against the order of the Labour Appellate Tribunal. Held, that a Conciliation Officer under cl. 29 of the Order promulgated in 1954 uµder the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, I 94 7, has to act judicially in granting or refusing per~ n1ission to alter the terms of employment of workmen at the instance of the employer, but as he is not invested \Vith the judicial power of the State, he cannot be regarded as a tribunal within the meaning of Art. 136 of the Constitution· of In<lia. Consequently, an appr.al under that Article is not competent against the direction given by the Conciliation Officer. Bharat Rank Ltd. v. Empwyees of Rlwrnt Bank LU., [1950] S. C. R. 459, Province of Bomba.y v. K. 8. Arfoa11i, [1950] S. C. R. 621, Atherton West & Co. LU. v. Snti JJfilf Mazdoor Union, [1953] S. C.R. 780 and I>urya Shan/.·ar Mehta v. Thakur Ray/1uraj Singh, [1955] l S. C.R. 267, relied on. Held, further, that an "authority" under s. 2 (c) (iii) of the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, l<J:io, to b~ an industrial tribunal must be a body constitutrcl for the purpose of adjudication of industrial disputes under a law 1nadc liv the State; since a Conciliation Officer is not invf'sterl 'vith a;1y such po,ver, he can1tot be regarded as an "authority" "'ithin thr mC'aning of that section. Accordingly, an appeal ag·ainst the order of the Conciliation Officer is not maintainable undf'r s. 4 of the Ind11strial Disputes (Apprllate 'l'rih11na.l) Act, 19.10. i9a .. 'isoon lf;- .4lliance Flilk Mill8 Co. Ltrl. v . . ~fill Jlrr:iluor Sabha, [1955] I L. L. J. 70, referred to. CrvIL APPrJLLATE .Jumson"r!ON : Civil Appeals Nos. 37 and 38 of 1961. 1962 Jaswant Sugar Mil Ltd.. lv!eerut v. Lakshmichand 1962 ,,,.itswoot Sugar Mills Ltd., Meerut v. Lakshmichand Sh4k, J. 244 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963]SUPP. Appeals by special leave from the judgm
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.