LexKAPRA MAZDOOR EKTA UNION versus MANAGEMENT OF M/S. BIRLA COTTON SPINNING AND WEAVING MILLS LTD. AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A KAPRA MAZDOOR EKT A UNION __...., v. MANAGEMENT OF M/S. BIRLA COTTON SPINNING AND WEA YING MILLS LTD. AND ANR. B MARCH 16, 2005 [N. SANTOSH HEGDE, B.P. SINGH AND S.B. SINHA, JJ.] -~- labour laws-Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 : c Sections I I, 17 and 17 A-Application for recall/review of Award passed ._, by Tribunal-Application made two days before the Award would have become enforceable-Jurisdiction of Tribunal to entertain the application-Held: The Tribunal had not become func,tus officio on the date of the application, hence, had jurisdiction to entertain the application. D Section 1 I-Recall/review of Award passed by Tribunal sought on ground that some matters which ought to have been considered by the Tribunal were not considered-Ju ... isdiction of Tribunal to recall/review the Award-Held: The recall/review sought was not a procedural review, but a review on merits- Such a review was not permissible in absence of a provision in the Act E conferring the power of review on the Tribunal either expressly or by necessary ·, implication. "Procedural review" and "Review on merits"-Distinction between- ~ Discussed ---- F Disputes arose between the workmen and management of respondent-company on account of closure of some looms in its weaving section. While reference of the dispute was pending before the Industrial Tribunal, a settlement was arrived at between the management and the workmen on May 17, 1983. Management filed application for passing an ~ Award in terms of the settlement, which the Appellant-trade union I ' G opposed. Matter ultimately came before this Court which directed the Tribunal to adjudicate. The Tribunal passed a detailed reasoned Award on June 12, 1987 holding that the settlement of May 17, 1983 was reached ---, in the course of conciliation proceedings and was hence binding on all the workers of the respondent-Company. The Award was duly published by H 888 KAPRA MAZDOOR EKTA UNION '"MGMT. OF BIRLA COTT. SPIN. AND WEA V. MILLS 889 the appropriate Government in the Gazette on August 10, 1987. A On September 7, 1987 the appellant-Union tiled an application before the Tribunal contending that the only question which had been argued' before the Tribunal was in relation to the power and jurisdiction of the Conciliation Officer to record settlement between the parties during the pendency of the disputes; and that the other question as to whether the , B settlement was fair and just was not argued. It was, therefore, prayed that , the Award dated June 12, 1987 be recalled and the appellant-Union be given an opportunity to establish that the settlement was unjust and unfair, adversely affecting a large number of workmen. Tribunal allowed the . application by its order dated February 19, 1990. Writ petition filed before , C High Court for quashing of the order was allowed. Hence the present appeal. In appeal to this Court, the questions arising for consideration were- whether the Tribunal was not functus officio and had jurisdiction to entertain the application for recall of its earlier Award, which amounted D virtually to a review. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. Under sub-section (1) of Section 17A of the Act an Award becomes enforceable on the expiry of 30 days from the date of its E publication under Sectio.n 17 of the Act. In the present case, the Award was made on June 12, 1987 and published in the Gazette on August 10, 1987. Thus the Award would have become enforceable with effect from September 9, 1987. However, the application for recalling the Award was made on September 7, 1987 i.e. 2 days before the Award would have become enforceable in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 17 A of the Act. F On September 7, 1987, the Award had not become enforceable and, therefore, on that date the Tribunal had jurisdiction over the disputes referred to it for adjudication. Consequently it had power to entertain an application in connection with such dispute. [897-F-G; 898-D] Grindlays Bank Ltd v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal and Ors., G [1980) (Supp) SCC 420; Satnam Verma v. Union of India, [1984) Supp SCC 712; J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, [1996} 6 SCC 92 and MP. Electricity Board v. Hariram etc., .JT (2004) 8 SC 98, relied on. 2.1. There is a differenc 1e between a procedural review and a review H on merits. Cases where a decision is rendered by the Court or quasi- 890 SUPREME COURT RE
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.