LexM/S. U. P. ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO., LTD. versus THE WORKMEN OF M/S. S. N. CHOUDHARY, CONTRACTORS AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 189 remedies available to the petitioner for obtaining i96o relief.· It cannot complain of a breach of Art 14. P b'·- ·r Th h . f th . . . th if ar '~ni rampo•l e ot er contention o e peht10ner IS at. C<HJp. Chapter IY permits the State to compete with a private Society Ltd. citizen, it offends Art. 14 because in view of the vast v. resources of th. e State a private citizen is bound to lose R. T. A. 1 £ d Aurangabad in such competition. --This point is clear y un ounde • Article 19(6) as it now stands, contemplates such a Sarkar J. competition as we have earlier pointed out. The peti- tioner can base no grievance on such competition. , For these reasons we think that this petition must fail' and hence it is dismissed with· costs. · · Petition dismi;~ed. ··· M/s. U. P. ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO., LTD. v. THE WORKMEN OF M/s. S. N. CHOUDHARY, CONTRACTORS AND ANOTHER (P. B. GAJENDBAGADKAR AND K. N. \VANCHOO, JJ). ·· · · Industri~lDispute-Tribunal deciding issue not rejerred to it~ Jurisdiction-U.P. Industrial Dispute Act, r947 (XXV III of r947), &~~~0~& .. The appellant company used to employ J\Iessrs. S. 11: Chou- dhary as its contractors for doing certain work for it and the contractors in their turn used to employ some workmen to carry out the work _w)lich they took on contract. A dispute having arisen between the contractors and their workmen an application was made before the conciliation board by the workmen in which both the company and the contractors were parties and four · matters were referred, namely, non-grant of bonus for two years, non-grant of festival holidays, non-fixation of minimum wages · of those workmen at par with the workmen of the company and non-abolition of the contract system. As conciliation failed the Government referred the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act in which only three points out of the four mentioned above were referred and the question of non-abolition of the contract system was· not referred. The parties to this reference were the contractors and their workmen . and not the appellant company. By a subsequent notification, ho;vever, the Government impleaded the Company asa party to . the dispute but did not amend the previous referring order by Ma1eh8 M/,,U P. Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. Workmen of Mf'· S. N. Choudhary 190 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960] adding the fourth point of dispute which was hefore the concilia- tion board, namely, the non-abolition of the contract system. The Industrial Tribunal framed a number of issues the most important of which was whether the workmen concerned were the employees of the appellant company or of the contractors and came to the conclusion that those workmen were in fact and 'in reality the employees of the company. On appeal by the company by special leave, . Held, that on such a reference there could be no jurisdiction in the tribunal to· decide the question whether these workmen were the \vorkmen of the company or of the contractors, for such a question was riot referred to the tribunal. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 481of1958. Appeal by special leave from the Award dated June 29, 1957, of the State Industrial, Tribunal U.P. Allahabad, in Ref. No. 98 of 1956. M. G. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India, S. N: Andley, J.B. Dadachanji, Rameshwar Na.th and P. L. V ohra, for the appellants. • A. D. Mathur, for respondent No. 1. G. G. Mathur and G. P. Lal, for respondent No. 2. G. N. Dikshit and G. P. Lal, for the intervener. 1960. March, 8. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Wanchoo J. WANOHOO, J.-This is an appeal by special leave against the order of the Industrial Tribunal, Allaha- bad. The appellant is the U. P. Electric Supply Co. Ltd., Lucknow, (hereinafter called the company). It appears that the company used to employ Messrs. S. M. Choudhary (hereinafter referred to as the con- tractors) as its contractors for doing certain work for it. The contractors in their turn used to employ a number of persons to carry out the work.which they had taken on contract. A dispute.arose between the qontractors and their workmen in 1956 and an appli- cation was made on June 6, 1956, by the workmen before the conciliation board. To this application both the company as well as the contractors were parties and four matters were referred by the work- men to
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.