LexMANAGEMENT OF BANGALORE WOOLLEN, COTTON & SILK MILLS CO. LTD. versus THE WORKMEN & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1181
A MANAGEMENT OF BANGALORE WOOLLEN, CO'ITON
I: SILK MILLS CO. LTD.
v.
THE WORKMEN I: ANR.
September 18, 1967
]l [M. lflDAYATULLAH, V. BHARGAVA AND C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.)
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), ss. 10 and 19(6>-Juris-
diction of Tribunal to consider matters covered by oo earlier atDard
which has not been terminated by notice under s. 19(6}-Jurisdic-
tion of Tribunal to adjudicate on matters provided for Industrial
Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (20 of 1946).
The Standing Orders of the appellant's establishment. duly certi-
e Jled under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946,
dealt inter alia, with provisions relating to leave to be granted to the
workmen. In l.C. 11 of 1955 the Industrial Tribunal by its award
modified the said standing orders and made provisions for certain
kinds of leave. The award came into operation on November 18, 1956
under s. 19(3t read with s. 17A(7) of the Industrial Disputes Act. On
further disputes arising the parties entered on September 19, 1958
into a settlement under s. 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act where-
D by in return for the revision of the scales of pay, the workmen agreed
that for a period of three years commencing from January 1, 1958.
they would not raise any dispute on certain matters including leave.
This settlement was terminated by the workmen by notice dated
August 14, 1961 under s. 19(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. In 1963
the State Government again referred to the Industrial Tribunal an
industrial dispute between the appellant and the workmen. This
E dispute was registered as I.D. No. 8 of 1963 and the questions referred
related to privilege leave, casual leave and sick leave. The appellant
urged before the Tribunal that it was not competent to hear the re-
ference because (i) the earlier award in I.C. 11 of 1955 which dealt
with matters relating to leave had not been terminated by a notice
under s. 19(6) of the Industrial Disputes Act; (ii) the Standing Or-
ders in. question could be modified only by the procedure under the
Standing Orders, Act and not under the Industrial Disputes Act be-
p
cause the former Act was self-sufficient in regard to the matters
covered by it. The Tribunal and the High Court both rejected the
appellant's objections, whereupon, by special leave, appeal was filed
in this Court. On behalf of the workmen it was stated that notice of
termination of the earlier award under s. 19(6) of the Industrial Dil-
putes Act had been given by them in a letter dated June 26, 1961.
HELD: (i) When there is a subsisting award bindin11 on the par-
G ties the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider the same points In
a fr.esh reference. In the present case the earlier award had not beeD
terminated and the reference was therefore incompetent. [588D]
The letter of June 26, 1961 could not be treated as a notice under
s. 19(6) of the Industrial Disputes Act terminating the earlier award
'in I.C. 11 of 1955 because it did not convey any such intention. More-
ove! it was written while the settlement of September 19. 1958 by
which the workmen had bound themselves not to raise any dispute
B regarding leave facilities for three years was still in force, for the
noti~e of. termination of the settlement under s. 19(2) was given by
the workmen only on August 14, 1961. Until the said settlement was
terminated the union of workmen had no right to make demands
about leave facilities as Jt purported to do on June 26, 1961. [58'1G-
588C]
,
SUPREME ('OL"RT BEPOHT~
(1968] 1 8.C.R,
The Workmen of Western India .Match Co. Ltd. v. The Western .A
/ndi" Matcl• Co. Ltd .. [1963) 2 S.C .. R. 27, referred to.
liil The Standing Orders Act which has for its object. the defin-
ing ·,\'ith sufficient precision. the conditions of emplo~·ment, under
the industrial establishments and to make the said conditions known
to tl:e workmen, has provided more or less a speedy remedy to the
workmen. for the purpose of having a standing order modified or for
having any question relating to the application, or interpretation of B
a standing order. referred to a labour court. But there is no warrant
for holding that merely because the Standing Orders Act is a self-
contained statute with regard to the matters mentioned therein. the
jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal under the Act. to adjudicate
upon the matters covered by the standing orders, has been in any
manner. abridged or taken aExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.