LexM/S. TATA IRON & STEEL CO. LTD. versus STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 9 S.C.R. 437 M/S. TATA IRON & STEEL CO. LTD. v. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 8246 of 2013) SEPTEMBER 16, 2013 [K. S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND A.K. SIKRI, JJ.] Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: A B s.10(1) - Reference of disputes to Labour Court - c Jurisdiction of Labour Court - Explained. s.10(1) - Reference of dispute to Labour Court - Defective reference - Held: In the instant case, the reference does not reflect the real dispute between the parties - On the contrary, the manner in which the reference is worcJed, shall D preclude the appellant to put forth and prove its case as it would deter the Labour Court to go into those issues - The reference also implies that the appropriate Government has itself decided the contentious issues and assumed the role of an adjudicator which is, otherwise, reserved for the Labour E Court/ Industrial Tribunal - The reference being defective, is quashed - Appropriate Government directed to make reference afresh, incorporating real essence of the dispute as discussed in the judgment. The appellant sold its cement division to Mis Lafarge India Pvt. Ltd in terms of Business Transfer Agreement (BTA) dated 9.3.1999 which was to be effected from 1.11.1999. According to the appellant, consequent upon F the agreement, the employees working in its cemen~ G division including respondent Nos. 8-82 we're also taken over by Mis Lafarge and the latter issued them fresh letters of appointments. Subsequently, the said employees submitted a statement of demand to the 437 H 438 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 9 S.C.R. A appellant on 15.9.2003, stating that they were directed to work with M/s. Lafarge without taking their consent and they should be taken back with the appellant company. The Conciliation Proceedings having failed, two references u/s. 10(1) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 B were made for adjudication to the Labour Court to the effect: whether or not to take back the workmen of appellant in the service after their transfer to Mis Lafarge was justified; and if not, what relief they were entitled to. The appellant filed writ petitions before the High Court c seeking to quash of the references. The stand of the appellant was that the manner in which the references were worded did not depict the true nature of the dispute between the parties, as the workmen were no longer in their employment and, therefore, could not have raised 0 the grievance or any dispute against the appellant 'company. The Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions with the observation that the Labour Court couJd adjudicate and answer the reference after considering all the points raised by the parties. The Intra court appeals E preferred by the appellant were dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court. Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1. The High Court is right in holding that the F Industrial Dispute has arisen between the parties. In the instant cases, the appellant is denying the respondents to be its workmen. On the other hand, respondents are asserting that they continue to be the employees of the appellant company. This, as per s. 2(k) of the Industrial G Disputes Act, 1947, itself would be a "dispute" which has to be determined by means of adjudication. Once these respective contentions were raised before the Labour Department, it was not within the powers of the Labour pepartment/ appropriate Government to decide this dispute and assume the adjudicatory role. Therefore, this H facet of dispute also needs to be adjudicated upon by the TATA IRON & STEEL CO. LTD. v. STATE OF 439 JHARKHAND Labour Court. It cannot, therefore, be said that no dispute A exists between the parties. Of course, in a dispute like this, Mis. Lafarge also becomes a necessary party. [Paras 10 and 11) [444-D; 445-A-D] 1.2. Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act is a creature of that 8 statute. It acquires jurisdiction on the basis of reference made to it. The Tribunal has to confine itself within the scope of the subject matter of reference and cannot travel beyond the same. Therefore, it becomes the bounden duty of the appropriate Government to make the C reference appropriately which is reflective of the real/ exact nature of "dispute" between the parties. Though the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is confined to the terms of reference, but at the same time it is empowered to go into
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.