M/S. TATA IRON & STEEL CO. LTD. versus THE WORKMEN & ORS.

Citation: [1973] 1 S.C.R. 594 · Decided: 05-05-1972 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.A. VAIDYIALINGAM · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

594 
MIS. TATA IRON & STEEL CO. LTD. 
v. 
THE WORKMEN & ORS. 
May 5, 1972 
[C. A. VAIDIALINGAM AND I. D. DUA, JJ.J 
The Coal Mines Provident Fund and Bonus Scheme Act (46 of 1948), 
s. 5 and Item 7 of Ill Schedule-Coal Mines Bonus Scheme providing for 
a quasi ;udicial authority to decide on legality of strikes-If ultra vires-
Delegated legislation, limits of. 
Jnd'ustrial Disputes Act (14 of 1947), s. 9A and IV Schedule-Change 
of rest days from Sunday to another 
day-Na riotice to workmen-If 
legal. 
The Coal Mines Provident Fund and Bonus Scheme Act, 1948, was 
enacted for making provision for the framing of a provident fund tcheme 
and bonus scheme for persons employed in coal mines. Section 5 of the 
Act empowers the Central Government to •frame the Coal Mines Bonlli 
Scheme which may provide for all or any of the matters specified -in third 
schedule to the Act. Item 7 of the schedule extends to matters which may 
he necessary or proper for the purpose of implementing the Scheme. 
Paragraph 8 of the Coal Mines Bonus Scheme provides for the effect 
of participation in an illegal strike, and, in case a dispute arises u to 
whether the strikt is illegal or lelftl for the purpose of the scheme, which 
authority and according to what proetdure, is to decide that dispute. 
In 1963, due to shortage of 1,'0wer, the appellant decided to stauer 
weekly rest days in all its collieries. 
In one of them, Wednesday, and 
ia another, Thursday, were introduced as rest days instead of Sunday1. 
The change was lo take effect from September 22, which was a Sunday. 
The workmen failed to turn up for work on that Sunday as well as on 
the next Sunday, September 
29. 
When they turned up for work on 
Wednesday, September 25, at one colliery and on Thurday September 26, 
at the other colliery they were told that those days were weekly rest days 
and on that ground they were not.given any work. The appellant filed four 
applications before the Regional Labour Commissioner, 
who was the 
authority und"f para 8 of the Coal Mines Bonus Scheme for a declaration 
that there was an illegal strike by the workmen on the Sundays on which 
they failed to turn up for work. 
The respondents filed two applications 
before the same authority stating that there was an illegal lockout on 
September 25 and September 26 at the two collieries respectively. The 
Regional Labour Commissioner held in favour of the worknlen that there 
was no illegal strike. The order was confirmed in appeal by the Central 
Industrial Tribunal and in writ petitions, by the High Court. 
In appeal to this Court, it was contended that : 
(I) para 8 of the 
Scheme creating a quasi judicial tribunal was ultra vires and that such a 
tribunal could only be created by the Legislature; and (2) that change 
in the rest days did not effect any change in the conditions of service of 
workmen in respect of any matter specified in the Fourth Schedule to the 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and hence notice of change of rest days to 
workmen under s. 9A of that Act was not neces'8ry. 
Dismissing the appeal, 
A 
' 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
TATA IRON 
STEEL co. LTD. v. WORKMEN (Dua,!.) 
595 
HELD : (I) (a) The increasing complexity of modern administration 
and the need for flexibility capable of rapid readjustment to meet 
the 
changing circumstances, which cannot always be foreseen, in implementing 
the socio-economic policy, pursuant to the establishment of a welfare 
state as contemplated by the Constitution, have rendered it convenient, 
practical and necessary, for the legislatures to have frequent resort to the 
practice of delegating subsidiary or ancillary powers to delegates of their 
choice. Parliamentary .procedure 
and discussion in getting through 
a 
legislative measure is time-consuming, and such measures cannot provide 
·for all possible c.ontingencies since one cannot visualise the various per-
mutations and combinations of human conduct and behaviour. 
But the 
delegation of legislative power is permissible only when the legislative 
policy .and principle is adequately laid down and the delegate is only em-
powered to carry out the subsidiary poJ:cy within the guidelines laid down 
by the legislature. 
The legislature cannot abdicate 
its authority 
aod· 
cannot pass to some other body the obligation and the responsibility im' 
posed on it by the Constitution. It can only utilise other bodies or autho-
rities for the purpose of working out the details wi

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