LexNATIONAL COUNCIL FOR CEMENT AND BUILDING MATERIALS versus STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
J NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR CEMENT AND BUILDING A MATERIALS v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS FEBRUARY 15, 1996 B [KULDIP SINGH AND S. SAGHIR AHMAD, JJ.] Labour Law: Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Sections 10(4), 2(j), (k) and (s). C Industrial Dispute-Reference-Preliminmy and main issues-Proce- dure for detennination of-Preliminmy issue-To decide if activities con- stituted "indusny''-Framed to delay adjudication-Held: Industrial T!ibunal rightly decided to hear the same along with the main issue-High Cowt also lightly refused to inte1f ere under A1ticle 226 of the Constitution with such D interlocut01y order of the Tlibunal-Constitution of India, Anicle 226-In- dustlial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. lndustlial Tlibunal-Practice and Procedure-Scope of inte1f erence with. An association of the employees of the appellant- society filed a writ petition in the High Court for a direction to the appellant to have its own certified Standing Orders made under the Industrial Employment (Stand- ing Orders) Act, 1946. The writ petition was resisted by the appellant on the ground that it was not an"industry" and, therefore, not liable to make its own certified standing orders. Pursuant to the direction by the High Court, the dispute whether the appellant was an "industry" within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was referred to the Industrial Tribunal by the State. With the consent of the parties, the Industrial Tribunal framed an additional issue as to whether the reference was bad in law. Originally this issue was to be decided as a preliminary issue but by a subsequent order the Tribunal directed that this issue as also other issues would be considered together. The appellant challenged the above order in the High Court and the appeal was dis- missed. Aggrieved by the High Court's Judgment the appellant preferred the present appeal. 689 E F G H 690 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 2 S.C.R. A Dismissing the appeal, this Court, B HELD : 1.1. Usually, whenever a reference comes up before the Industrial Tribunal, the Establishment, in order to delay the proceeding, raises the dispute whether it is an "industry" as defined in Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; or whether the dispute referred to it for adjudication is an "industrial dispute" within the scope of Section 2(k) of the Act, and also whether the employees are "workmen" within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act. A request is made that these questions may be determined as preliminary issues so that if the decision on these questions are in the affirmative, the Tribunal may proceed to deal with the real C dispute on merits. The appellant is no exception and it has also raised the same question which has brought this industrial litigation, still at its infancy, to this Court. (693-C-D] 1.2. The Tribunal subsequently rightly decided to hear the issue along with other issues on merits at a later stage of the proceedings. It was at this D stage that the High Court was approached by the appellant with the grievance that the Industrial Tribunal, having once decided to hear the matter as a preliminary issue, could not change its mind and decide to hear that issue along with other issues on merits. The High Court rightly refused to intervene in the proceeding pending before the Industrial Tribunal at an E interlocutory stage and dismissed the petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. The decision of the High Court is fully in consonance with the law laid down by this Court in its various decisions. (694-E-G] F Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa & Ors., [1978] 3 S.C.R. 207, referred to. Cooper Engi,nee1ing Ltd. v. P.P. Mundhe, [1976] 1 S.C.R. 361; S.K. Ve1ma v. Mahesh Chandra, [1983] 3 S.C.R. 799; D.P. Maheshwari v. Delhi Administration, [1983] 3 S.C.R. 949 and Workmen v. Hindustan Lever Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 641, relied on. G CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3519 of 1996. From the Judgment and Order dated 22.9.95 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 14201 of 1995. H AK. Sikri and Ms. Madho Sikri for the Appellant. \ j ... N.C.C.B. MAlERIALS v. STAIB [S. SAGHIR AHMAD,J.] 691 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by A S. SAGHIR AHMAD, J. Leave granted. 2. After the decision of this Court in Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa & Ors., (1978) 1 Labour Law Journal 349 = [197
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.