LexRAI SAHIB RAMDAYAL GHASIRAM OIL MILLS versus THE LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS RAI SAHIB RAMDAYAL GHASIRAM OIL MILLS v. THE LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND ANOTHER 845 (S. J. IMAM, J. L. KAPUR, K. SUBBA RAo and J. R. MuDHOLKAR, JJ.) Industrial Dispute-Closure of the Mill on the ground of loss-Workmen awarded retrenchment benefit-Mill reopened -Only some of the former workers re-employed-Wag" reduced-Reference made to single member Tribunal-Another sinyle member Tribunal after /&is retirement-No fresh reference made-Whether neio Tri'bunal hao jurisdiction to adjndicate- Constitution of India, Art. 226-Industrial Disputes .let 1947 (14 of 1947), ss. 7 (1), 8 (2), 10 (1) (c)-lndustrial Dis- 1iutes Act, 1947, as amended by Industrial Disputes (Amend- ment) Act 1953, s. 25 (H). The appelhnt concern was closed on the ground that it incurred heavy losses. Thereupon the workmen raised an industria1 dispute and they were awarded rctrcnclunent bene- fits. About.two years later the appellant concern was re- opened. But only some of the former wor werekers re-employ- ed along with some new recruits. The wages were lower than before. The workers put forward certain damar.ds including for the demand for absorption of those of the workmen who were not re-employed when the mill was reopened and for payment to them of compensation for une1nployment from the date of re- opening. An industrial dispute having arisen the Government constituted a single Member Tribunal and made a reference of the disputes to that Tribunal. Thereafter the Member retired. The Governmeut then purporting to act under s. 7 (I) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and in supercessio.n of the pre~ vious notification constituted a single ~1ember 'fribunal. This 'fribunal to which no fresh reference was n1ade proceeded with the adjmlication of the dispute. Apart· from the demands already made the workers conlendcd before the Tribunal that they were entitled to the benefits under s; 25 (H) of the In- dustrial Dispules Act, as amended by the Industrial Dhputcs (Amendment) Act, 1953. Thr, appellant contended that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute J96f 1962 Rlli SaW Ramdayal G. asiram Oil Mills v. The Labour AJ,pellate Tribunal 846 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] StJPP. and that s. 25 (H) wa• not available to the fvrmer workmen who had been retrenched. The first contention of the appe- llant was rejected. Even though the second contention was accepted the r[ rih11naJ made an order in favour of the \.\'Orkmcn on the ground that though they cannot clain1 the statutory benefits of s. 25 (H) the principle of sucialjusticc 11n<lcrlyi11g that section entitled them to receive s.-ila.ries au<l allowances from the date of reopening the mill. The appellaut preferred an appeal to the Industrial Appellate Tribunal. On the dis- missal of that appeal the appellant filed a writ petition before the High Conrt of Bombay. The High Court sununarily dis- missed that petition but a c·crtificatc was granted to appeal tu this Court. The appellant reitrated before this Court the two con- tcutiuus stated abvve. Held, that snb-s. (I) of s. 7 of the Industrial Disputes Act empowers the Government to constitute a Tribunal. But n1ercly constituting a Tribunal tOr adjudicaiion of disputes is not enough. It has also to act under s. 10 and make a specific reference to it of each dispute for adjudication. Without such a reference the 'fribunal docs not get any jurisdiction to ad- judicate upou any dispute. The provisions of s. 25 (H) caunut apply to workmen \vho had been retrenched before thls section came into force. 'fhe provision not Ueing retrospective no tribunal h<is jurisdic- tion on the basis of its own conception of social justice to apply it or its underlying "principle" to a dispute which arose before the provision cainc into force. CIVIL APPELLATEjURSIDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 593/1960. Appeal from the order dated October HI, 1956, of 'the Bombay High Court in special Civil Application No. 2832 of 1956. Bi11lian N um-in and K. L. JJf eh tu, for the appellant. The respondent did not appear. 1962. December JO. The Judgment of the Court· was delivered by • -, 2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 847 MUDHOLKAit, J.-This is an appeal by a certificate from the summary dismissal by the Bombay High Court of a writ petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The relevant facts arc these: Rai Sahib Ramdayal Ghasiram Oil .l
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.