NIEMLA TEXTILE FINISHING MILLS LTD. versus THE 2ND PUNJAB INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

Citation: [1957] 1 S.C.R. 335 · Decided: 10-01-1957 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUDHI RANJAN DAS · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
335 
necessary to re-examine the witnesses who have already 
been examined m court unless the court thinks it 
necessary. 
Appeal allowed. Case remanded for retrial. 
NIEMLA TEXTILE FINISHING MILLS LTD. 
v. 
THE 2No PUNJAB INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL 
(with connected appeals and petitions) 
rs. R. DAS C.J., BHAGWATI, 
VENKATARAMA 
AYYAR, 
B. P. SINHA and S. K. DAs JJ.] 
Industrial 
Disputes 
Act, 
1947 (XIV of 1947)-Constitutional 
1'alidity-Legislative competency-Powers of 
Industrial 
Tribunals-
Whether Legislative-The Government of India Act, 1935 (25 & 26 
Geo. 5, Ch. 42), Sch. VII, List III, Entt·ies 27, 29-Constitution of 
India, Arts. 14, 19 (1) (f) and (g). 
The 
disputes 
between 
the 
appellants 
and their 
workmen 
were referred to the Industrial 
Tribunal for adjudication by 
the 
appropriate Government, under the provisions of the Industrial 
Disputes 
Act, 1947. 
It 
was 
contended 
for the 
appellants that 
the reference to the Tribunal was bad because 
( l) the Act was 
ultm 
vires. the 
Constitution 
inasmuch 
as 
its 
provisions 
are 
Yiobtive of the fundamental rights enshrined in Art. 14 and Art. 
19 (I) ( f) and ( g) of the Constitution, (2) the Industrial Tribunals 
are legislating in the guise of adjudication, and this amounts to 
delegation of the powers of legislation which it was not competent 
to the Central Legislature to do so, and ( 3) the definition of the 
term "industry" comprises industrial 
as 
well 
as 
non-industrial 
concerns and, therefore, 
the Act was 
not within the legislative 
competence 
of the 
Central Legislature under Entry 29 of List Ill 
of the Seventh Schedule to the 
Government of India Act, 1935. 
Held: (1) 
The 
Industrial 
Disputes 
Act, 
1947, 
1s 
not 
unconstitutional 
and the provisions 
of the Act 
do not contravene 
Arts. 14 and 19 (l) (£) and (g) of the Constitution. 
The basic idea underlying all the provisions of the Act is the 
'settlement of industrial 
disputes 
and the promotion 
of industrial 
peace 
so 
that 
production 
may 
not, be 
interrupted and 
the 
<:ommunity 
in general 
may 
be benefited, 
and 
the 
appropriate 
Government has, therefore, a discretion 
in the matter of making 
the reference to one or other of the authorities under the Act and 
also in the matter of carrying out the various provisions of the 
Act, 
including _ the curtailment or extension of the 
period ot 
1957 
Dharmanand Pant 
v. 
State of Uttar 
Pradesh 
Govinda Almon J. 
1957 
January 10 
336 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1957] 
1957 
op.erati~n of 
the . aw~rd of the 
Tribunal, 
having 
regard to the 
Niemla Textile 
ex1genc1es of the s1tuat1on 
and the objects to be achieved. 
Finishing Mills Ltd. 
v. 
The 2nd Punja6 
Industrial Tribunal 
. 
(2) Industrial 
Tribunals 
while 
settling 
particular 
industrial 
disputes 
refe~red to them, lay down certain general principles to 
be observed in regard to the 
determination of 
bonus, 
reinstate~ 
ment of dis1nissed 
or discharged en1ployees and other allied topics 
1nainly with the object of promoting industrial peace, but these 
principles 
or 
rules 
of 
conduct, 
though 
they 
are 
applied as 
precedents by the Industrial Tribunals while adjudic.iting upon 
other similar industrial disputes referred 
to 
them, are not rules 
of la\V and do not amount to legislation. 
(3) The Act is not ultra vires the legislature, as the matters 
included within 
the 
definition 
of the term "industry" are vvithin 
the 
legislative 
competence 
of 
the 
Central 
Legislature 
under 
Entries 27 and 29 of List lII of the Seventh Schedule to the 
Government of India Act, 1935. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JuR!smcTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 
333-335 of 1955 and Petitions Nos. 65, 182 and 203 of 
1956. 
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and 
order dated April 15, 
1955, of the Punjab High Court 
at Chandigarh in Civil Writs Nos. 131-133 of 1955 and· 
Petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. 
for the enforcement of fundamental rights. 
Veda Vyasa, Bhagirath Das and M. L. Kapur, for 
the appellants. 
Veda Vyasa, S. K. Kapur and 
N. H. Hingorani, for 
the petitioners in Petitions Nos. 65 and 182 of 1955. 
Veda Vyasa, Bhagirath Das and B. P. Maheshwari, 
for the petitioner in Petition No. 203 of 1956. 
S. M. Sikri, Advocate-General of Punjab, Jindra Lal 
and T. M. Sen, for respondent No. 2 in the Appeals 
and respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in the Petitions. 
Sadhan •Chandra Gupta, Bawa Shiv Charan 
Singh 
and /anardhan Sh

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