LexPOTTERY MAZDOOR PANCHAYAT versus THE PERFECT POTTERY CO. LTD. & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
IS
c
D
E
F
G
H
126
POTTERY MAZDOOR PANCHAYAT
v.
THE PERFECr POTTERY CO. LTD. & ANR.
October 19, 1978
[Y. v. CHANDRACHUD, C.J., P. s. KAILASAM AND A. D. KosHAL, JJ.]
Industrial Disputes Act 1947, Section IO(l)(d) and Madhya Pradesh Indus-
trial Relations Act 1960.
Section 51-Tribuna!s whether have jurisdiction to go-
bthind the terms of reference.
The respondent was engaged in the manufacture of stoneware pipes and
other refractory mat.erial at its factory.
It had taken lease of clay mines.
The respondent issued a notice of closure of the factory and mines, on account
of financial difficulties.
The factory was governed by the Madhya Pradesh
Industrial Relations Act, 1960 and the Mines :were governed by the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947.
A dispute having been raised by the workmen, the case relating to the
factory was referred under section 51 of the State Act to an Industrial Court,
while the dispute relating to the Mines was referred under section lO(l){d)
of the Central Act to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court.
The main ·question referred under the State Act was whether the proposed
closure was proper and justified, while the reference under the Central Act
was whether the employers were justified in closing down the mines.
The Industrial Court held that it had no jurisdiction either to inquire
into the propriety of the closure or to consider whether there was or was
not a real closure, while the Central Government lndustrial Trlbunal held
that though it had no jurisdiction to inquire whether the management's decision
to close down the business was proper and justified, it was entitled to consider
whether, in fact, the business was closed.
In writ petitions filed by both sides, the High Court came to the con-
clusion that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in industrial disputes is limited
to the points specifically referred for its adjudication and to matters incidental
thereto and that the Tribunal cannot go beyond the terms of reference made·
to it.
Dismissing the appeals,
HELD : 1. The references being limited to the narrow question whether the
.»--- -
--~.,....,
f
closure was proper and iustified, the Tribiunals by the very terms of the refer-·
ences, had no jurisdiction to go behind the fact of closure and inquire into
_,_.,..
the question whether the business was in fact closed down by the management.
[130 El
2. The terms of the references show that the point of dispute between the··
parties was not the fact of the closure of business but the propriety and justJ ...
fl.cation of the respondents' decision to close down the business. The Tribunal&·
•
MAZDOOR PANCHAYAT V. PERFECT POTTERY CO.
127
(Chandrachud, C. J.)
\\'ere not called upon to adjudicate upon the question as to whether under the
A
pretence of closing the business the workers were locked out by the manage-
ment. [130 C-DJ
3. The history of the dispute .indicated that the disput.e between the parties
related not to the question as to whether the business, in fact, was closed by
the management but whether there was any justification or propriety on the
part of the n1anagement in deciding to close down the business.
There is
B
a clear and unequivocal admission on the part of the workers before the
Tribunals that the business was in fact closed by the respondent. [130F, 13 ID]
4. The concept of 'closure' as envisaged in section 2(8) of the State Act
is perhaps \.vider than what is commonly understood by that expression but
that cannot assist the appellant to contend that under the terms of the refe-
rences, the Tribunals were entitled to enter into the question as to the fact of
the closure.
If ever it was the case of the appellant that there was in fact
no closure and there was really an illegal lock-out, the Teference would have
been asked for and made not under section 51 under which it was made, but
under section 82. f132B, Dl
5. The propriety of or justification for the closure of a business in fact and
truly effected, cannot raise an industrial dispute as contemplated by the State
and Centrul Acts. [132 F]
The Management of Express Newspapers Ltd. v. Workers and Staff Emp-
loyed under it and Others, [1963] 3 S.C.R. 540, 548 referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 293-295 of
c
1971.
E
From the Judgment and Order dated 30-4-1970 of the Madhya
Pradesh High Court in M.P. No. 333/68 and 48 and 27 of 1969.
Guiab Gupta aExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.