RAJ KUMAR GUPTA versus LT. GOVERNOR, DELHI AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 464 · Decided: 05-11-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
RAJ KUMAR GUPTA 
v. 
LT. GOVERNOR, DELHI AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 5, 1996 
B 
[J.S. VERMA, K. RAMASWAMY AND S.P. BHARUCHA, JJ.] 
c 
D 
Labour Law: 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: 
S. 34-0rder of appropriate Government authorising Patron of 
Karamchari Sangh to file a complaint for offence punishable u/s. 25U-
Held, valid-The appropriate Government may authorise some one other 
than itself, even a non-Government servant to file the complaint. 
Words and Phrases : 
Words "or under the authority of" occurring ins. 34(1) of Industrial 
Disputes Act, 1947-Meaning of 
Respondent no.I, the Lt. Governor of Delhi, passed an order 
E under s. 34 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 authorizing the 
appellant, the Patron of the Karamchari Sangh, to file a complaint 
against the employer-Companies, their Directors and the Regional 
Manager, the contesting respondents, for committing unfair labour 
practice punishable under s. 25-U of the Act. The Directors and the 
Regional Manager challenged the order before the High Court, which 
F allowed their writ petition in terms of the earlier judgment* wherein 
it was held that a complaint under s.34 of the Act could be filed 
either by the Government or its functionaries. Aggrieved, the appellant 
tiled the present appeals before this Court. 
G 
It was contended for the appellant that there was no justification 
for the High Court to read s.34 of the Act in a restricted manner. For 
the respondent, it was contended that only a delegate of the 
appropriate Government appointed under the provisions of s.39 of 
the Act could be authorised to file a compilation under s. 34. 
H 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
464 
-
' 
R.K. GUPTA v. LT. GOVERNOR, DELHI 
465 
HELD : 1.1. There is no limitation in s.34 of the Industrial A 
Disputes Act, 1947 in regard to the party to whom the authorisation 
may be given. It is the workman, the trade union and the employer 
who are most concerned with offences under the said Act and neither 
the terms ofs. 34 nor public policy require that they should be excluded 
from making such complaints. At the same time, the provisions of s. 
34 are in the nature of a limitation on the entitlement of a workman B 
or a trade union or an employer to complain of offences under the 
said Act. They should not, in the public interest, be permitted to 
make frivolous, vexatious or otherwise patently untenable complaints, 
and to this end s.34 requires that no complaint shall be taken 
cognizance of unless it is made with the authorisation of the 
appropriate Government. [470 H, 471 A,B) 
C 
*Tobu Enterprises Ltd. and Ors. v. The Lt. Governor, Delhi, and 
Ors, 53(1994) DL T 255, disapproved. 
S.N. Hada v. The Binny Ltd., Staff Association, (1989) LAB. l.C. D 
165, approved. 
1.2. The words "or under the authority or' in s.34 necessarily 
must be given due meaning and the meaning is that the appropriate 
Government may authorise someone other than itself, even a non-
Government servant, to file a complaint under s. 34. It cannot be E 
said that these words are only clarificatory and are implication of the 
provisions of s.39. Section 39 empowers the appropriate Government 
to delegate the powers exercisable by it under the said Act. This is 
altogether different from the concept of authorisation to file a 
complaint under Section 34. [471 C-El 
lshwar Singh Bagga and Ors v. State of Rajasthan, [1987] I SCC 
IOI, distinguished. 
F 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 8417 of G 
1994. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 5.11.93 of the Delhi High Court 
in C.W.P. No. 1889 of 1991. 
H.K. Puri, Rajesh Srivastava and Ujjwal Banerjee for the Appellant. H 
466 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 
A 
S.K. Dholakia, Shiv Kumar and Pramod Dayal for the Responder.ts. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
BHARUCHA, J. On 16th April, 1991, the first respondent passed 
the following order, acting under the provisions of Section 34 of the 
B Industrial Disputes Act, 194 7 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act"): 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
(i) 
(ii) 
"Whereas it has been made to appear to the Lt. Governor of 
the Union territory of Delhi that the management of 
Mis. Garden Silk Mills Ltd. Bella Mill Compound, Outside 
Seharagate, Surat (ii) Ms. Garden Silk Mills Ltd., 4959-
Kucha Rehman, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-6 have indulged in 
unfair labour practices as enumerated in the Fifth Schedule 
ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and thereby contravened 
section 26-T of the aforesa
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.