LexMANAGEMENT OF M/S M.S. NALLY BHARAT ENGG. CO. LTD. versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D MANAGEMENT OF MIS M.S. NALLY BHARAT ENGG. CO. LTD. v. STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. FEBRUARY 9, 1990 [K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY AND T.K. THOMMEN, JJ.] Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Section 33-B-Transfer of pro- ceedings-Obligation to record reasons-Whether mandatory-Denial of opportunity to management to represent-Order whether vitiated. Sub-section (1) of S. 33-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 provides that the appropriate Government may, by order in writing ~nd for reasons to be stated therein, withdraw any proceedings pending before a Labour Court or Tribunal and transfer it for disposal to another Labour Court or Tribunal. Respondent No. 4, a workman of the appellant-company at Dhanbad, was caught red-handed while stealing certain goods. The domestic enquiry found him guilty of committing theft. Consequently, he was dismissed from service. The dispute arising therefrom was refer- red to the Labour Court, Dhanbad under S. IO(l)(c) of the Act for E adjudication. When the matter was pending consideration the respon- dent sought transfer of the case to the Labour Court at Patna on the plea that since he was residing at his village near Patna it would be difficult for him to attend the proceedings at Dhanbad. That application was made without intimation to the management. The Government, however, without giving opportunity to the management transferred F the case to Patna by a notification dated August 8, 1988 issued under S. 33B of the Act. The writ petition filed by the management seeking to quash the notification was dismissed by the High Court on the view that no prejudice was being caused to the management and no allegation of ma/a fide had been made against the presiding officer. G Allowing the appeal by special leave, the Court. HELD: 1.1 The power to transfer a pending case uner S. 33B of the Industrial Disputes Act is not a mere administrative but quasi- judicial power and the appropriate Government cannot transfer a case on the basis of allegations of one party without giving a reasonable H opportunity to the other party to represent its point of view. Such 290 ' NALLY BHARAT CO. v.STATE OF BJHAR 291 allegations may not be valid or relevant or may not be true at all. That could be tested only if the other patty has notice of the same. [296A-C] A Punjab Worsted Spinning Mills, Chheharta v. State of Punjab & Ors., [1965] II LLJ 218 and Management of Sri Rani Lakshmi Ginning & Weaving Mills Ltd. v. State of Madras, [1975] 3 FLR 166, referred ~. B Jay Engineering Works Ltd. v. Fourth Industrial Tribunal, Calcutta, [1977] (Lab) I.C. 1739; Muthe Steels (India) Ltd. v. Labour Court, Hyderabad, [1979] (Lab) I.C. 325 and Pioneer Ltd. v. Labour Court, Gorakhpur, [1983] (Lab) I.C. 335, overruled. c 1.2 What is important in the modern administration is the fair- ness of procedure with elimination of element of arbitrariness, for fair- ness is a fundamental principle of good administration. It is a rule to ensure that vast power in the modern State is not abused but properly exercised. The State power is used for proper and not for improper purposes. The authority is not misguided by extraneous or irrelevant D consideration. Fairness is also a principle to ensure that statutory authority arrives at a just decision either in promoting the interest or affecting the rights of persons. The concept that 'justice should not only be done but be seen to be done' is the essence of fairness and is equally applicable to administrative authorities. Fairness is thus a prime test for proper and good administration. It has no set form or procedure. It does not necessarily r-equire a plurality of hearings or representations and counter representations. It depends upon the facts of each case. [297C, 299C-E] Ridge v. Baldwin, [1964] AC 40; A.K. Kraipak & Ors. v. Union E of India, [1970] l SCR 457; Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. v. Union of India, F [1973] 3 SCR 22; Pearlbergv. Varty, [1972] l WLR 534, 547; Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, [1978] 1 SCC 405; Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, [1978] 2 SCR 621; Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India, [1981] 1 SCC 664; Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, [1974] 2 SCR 348; Union of fadia v. Tulsi Ram, [1985] (Supp.) 2 SCR 131; Charan Lal Sahu & Ors. v. Union of India, JT 1989 4 SC 582; G Natural Justice by Paul Jackson, 2nd ed. p. 11 and Pannalal Binjraj & Anr. v. Union of India, [1957] 31ITR565, referred
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.