PREMIER AUTOMOBILES LTD. versus KAMLEKAR SHANTARAM WADKE OF BOMBAY & ORS.

Citation: [1976] 1 S.C.R. 427 · Decided: 26-08-1975 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A. ALAGIRISWAMI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · cites 11 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

y 
• 
• 
~ 
.. 
( 
... 
A 
B 
427 
PREMIER AUTOMOBILES LTD. 
\', 
KAMLEKAR SHANTARAM WADKE OF BOMBAY & ORS. 
August 26, 1975 
(A. ALAGIRISWAMJ, P. K. GOSWAMI AND N. L. UNTWALIA, JJ.] 
Industrial Disputes A ct, 1947-S. 18 ( 1 )-Agreenlent under-Dispute bet-· 
ween eniployer C!lld empfoYee in relation thereto-Whether could be decided by 
a Ci\·il Court. 
Jurisdiction of Cil'il Court in relation to an 
industrial 
dispute-Principles . 
Industrial Disputes, Act, s. IDA-Suit 
for 
enforcement of arbitration-
C 
Jurisdlction of Civil Court to try . 
D 
F 
G 
H 
The Industrial Disputes Act was enacted to make provEsion for the investi--
gation and settlement of the industrial disputes. 
The Act envisages collective 
bargaining, contracts between the workers' unions and management and the like: 
which are n1at1ers outside the realnt of the con1mo11 law or the law of contracts .. 
fhe Act defines an industrial dispute and what the term "settlement" means. 
Different 2uthorities have been created at different levels for settlement and 
adjudication of industrial disputes, conferring on them varied 
and 
extensive· 
powers. 
\Vhere a dispute between the workers and managen1ent cannot be re-
solved by the conciliation procedure envisaged under the Act, the dispute 
is. 
referred bv the Government to a Labour Court or a Tribunal. the award 
of" 
which becomes final and cannot be called :n question by any court in any manner 
whatsoever. 
Under s. 18(1) a settlement arrived at by agreement between the 
employer and \.vorkmcn, otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceeding.-
shall t.= binding on the parties to the agreement. 
In one of the departments of the appellant there were three groups of 
workers : One, the workers' union which was earlier recognised as a "trade union, 
and was derecognised by the appellant, and secondly another union which was re~ 
cognised in its ()lace and thirdly workn1en who were members of neither union. 
As a result of a settlement entered into with the derecognised union an incentive 
scheme was in force in this department of the appellant. After the derecogn~tion 
of the union, because of the increase in the strength of the workmen it became 
necessary for the company to revise the target figures of the incentive scheme. 
The company, therefore, entered into a ~ttlement with the union recognised 
later. This led to protests from; the de-recognised union. Respondents 1 and 2 who 
were members of the derecO@ised union, instituted a suit.in the Civil Court under 
O. I r. 8 of the Code of Civtl Procedure in· a representative capacity alleging that 
the earlier settlement was a contract of service and that the new settlement would. 
bring about a change in their service conditions, 
that the new settlement was 
arrived at without following the mandatory requ£rements of s. 9A of the Act and-
have prayed for a permanent injunction to restrain the appellant from implement-
ing the later settlen1ent. 
During the- trial the plaintiffs stated that they did not 
wish to enforce the first agreement as it would not be binding upon the workmen 
who were the members of the derecognised union. 
This led to dropping the issue 
relating to nonMcompliance with s. 9A of the Act also. 
The trial court held that it had jurisdiction to try the suit as it was a suit of a· 
civil nature for enforcement of rights of common and general law and conse-
quently there was no question of reliefs being cla'.med under the Industrial Dis-· 
putes Act. Treating the incentive payments made during the years when the first 
agreement was in force as imolied terms of conditiom of service and trial court 
granted a conditional decree of iniunction. On appeal, the High Court upheld 
the view of the trial court. On further appeal to this Court it was contended by 
the respondents that the remedv provided under the Industrial Disputes Act was 
a misnomer in that reference of an industrial dispute for adjudication to a tribunaf 
428 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1976] 1 S.C.R. 
·would depend upon the exercise of the power by the Government under s. !O• l_l 
·Of the Industrial Dispu~es Act. 
The Act Uid not confer any right on the suit0r. 
Allowing the appeal, 
HELD: The suit for a decree for pern1anent injunction was not ma:.ntC1in;:1Li!c 
jn the civil court as it had no jurisdiction to grant the relief or even a te1npor.:r} 
A 
;relief. 
[448C-DJ 
B 
(1) The principles applicable to the jurisdicEon of the civil court in relation 
·to an in

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