PARRY & CO. LTD. versus COMMERCIAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, MADRAS

Citation: [1952] 1 S.C.R. 519 · Decided: 10-04-1952 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BIJAN KUMAR MUKHERJEA · Disposal: Set Aside

Judgment (excerpt)

) 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
PARRY & CO. LTD. 
v. 
COMMERCIAL EMPLOYEES' ASSOCIATION, 
MADRAS. 
[SAIYAD FAZL Au, MuKHERJEA and DAs JJ.) 
519 
Certiorari-Writ cannot be issued unless there is want of, or error 
in exercise of, jurisdiction-Madras Shops and Establishments Act, 
1947, s. 51-Decision of Labour Commissioner-Finality of. 
The High Court cannot issue a writ of certiorari to quash a 
decision passed 
with jurisdiction by a 
Labour 
Commissioner 
under the Madras Shops and Establishments Act, 1947, on the 
mere ground that such decision is erroneous. 
Under s. 51 of the 
Madras Shops and Establishments Act, 
1947, the Labour Commissioner is the only proper and compe-
tent authority to determine the questions . referred to him under 
that section and the decision of the Labour Commissioner is final 
and not liable to be challenged in a Court of law. 
CIVIL 
APPELLATE 
JuR1smcnoN 
Civil 
Appeal 
No. 154 of 1951. Appeal from a judgment and order 
of the lst April, 1949, of the High Court of Judicature~ 
Madras (Rajamannar C.J. and Balakrishna Aiyar J.) 
in Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 1317 of 1949 arising 
out of Order dated 29th January, 1949, of the Commis-
sioner of Labour, Madras. 
S. C. Isaacs (S. N. Mukherjee: with him) for the 
appellant. 
The respondent was not represented. 
1952. April 10. The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
MUKHERJEA J.-This appeal is directed against a 
judgment of 
a Division Bench of the Madras High 
Court dated 1st April, 1949, passed in a certiorari 
proceeding, by which the learned Judges directed the 
issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing a portion of 
an order made by the Labour Commissiener, Madras 
J 
in any enquiry under section 51 of the Madras Shop; 
and Establishments Act. 
1952 
April 10~ 
520 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1952] 
1952 
/Parry & Co. Ltd. 
The facts material for our present purpose lie with-
in a narrow compass and to appreciate the point that 
requires consideration in this appeal it will be conve-
nient first of all to advert to a few relevant provisions of 
the Madras Act referred to above. The Act was passed 
in 1947 and its object, as stated in the preamble, is 
to provide for the regulation of conditions of work in 
shops and other establishments. Section 14(1) of the 
Act sets a statutory limitation upon the working hours 
and lays down: 
v. 
Commercial 
Employees' 
Association, 
Madras. 
Mul{heriea /. 
"Subject to the other provisions of the Act, 
no 
person employed in any establishment shall be requir-
ed or allowed to work for more than 8 hours in any 
day and 48 hours in any week." 
A proviso attached to the suh«ction which by 
way of exception to the rule enunciated therein allows 
.employment of a person in any establishment for any 
period in excess of this statutory limit subject to pay-
ment of overtime wages, provided the period of work 
including overtime work does not exceed 10 hours any 
day, and in the aggregate 54 hours in any week. 
Section 31 provides: 
"Where any person employed in any establishment 
is required to work overtime, he shall be entitled, in 
respect of such overtime work, to wages at twice the 
rate of ordinary rate of wages." 
Section 50 ·preserves the existing rights and privi-
leges of an employee in any establishment if these 
rights and privileges are more favourable to him than 
those created by the Act. 
The section runs as follows:-
"Nothing contained in this •Act shall affect any 
tights or privileges whkh any person employed in any 
.establishment is entitled to on the date on which this 
Act comes into operation in respect of such establish-
ment under any other law, contract, custom or usage 
<1pplicable to such 
establishment 
if such rights 
and 
privileges are more favourable to him than those to 
;. 
which he would be entitled under this Act." 
-
-
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
521 
The only other relevant section is section 51 which 
says:-
"If any question anses whether all or any of the 
provisions of this Act apply to an establishment or to a 
person employed therein or whether section 50 applies 
to any case or not, it shall be decided by the Com-
missioner of Labour and his decision thereon shall be 
final and shall not be liable to be questioned in a 
-court of law". 
The appellant is a limited company carrying on 
business i:n Madras, while the respondent is an associ-
'<ltion of clerical 
employees including 
those working 
under the appellant. On November 
10, 
1948, the 

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