ROHTAS INDUSTRIES LTD. & ANR. versus ROHTAS INDUSTRIES STAFF UNION AND ORS.

Citation: [1976] 3 S.C.R. 12 · Decided: 18-12-1975 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
12 
ROHTAS INDUSTRIES LTD. & ANR. 
v. 
ROHTAS INDUSTRIES STAFF UNION AND ORS. 
December 18, 1975 
[Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, V. R. KRISHNA IYER AND A. C. GUPTA, JJ.] 
Constitution of India Article 226 and 226(/A)-Powers of Higf1 Court to 
issue urrit against arbitrators under section lOA of Industrial Disputes Act-
Arbitration Act-Error apparent on the face of the record-Speaking award-
Error of Law. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Secs. 2(k) 10-A, 23, 24, 33C-
J.Vhether en1ployers can be awarded cornpensation for loss op profit due to illegal 
strike under Industrial Disputes Act-Industrial Dispute-Enforce1nent of special 
rights created ·by special statute whether confined to retnedies provided by tlze· 
statute. 
During the year 1948, the respondent, workmen working with both the appel-
lants v.'ent on illegal strike on account of Tradel Union rivalry. The workmen 
\Vere not paid wages for the strike period and the appellants lost their profit · 
during the period. The employers and the workmen entered into an agreement 
during the pendency of the conciliation proceedings and referred the claims of 
\Vorkmen for salaries during the strike period and the claims of the employers 
for compensation for loss dlJe to the strike to the joint arbitration of two retired 
Ifigh Court Judges and one retired MemQer of a Labour Appellate Tribunal under 
section lO~A of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. 
The arbitrator delivered their avlard and held that the workmen participating 
in the strike were not entitled to wages for the strike period. The arbitrators, 
however, awarded huge compensation to the employers against the workmen for 
the losses incurred by the employers during the strike period. The v,rorkmen 
challenged the av.·ard as illegal and void by filing hvo writ petitions in the High 
Court. The High Court upheld that part of the award which directed that the 
workn1en participating in the strike were not entitled to -wages. 
The High Court, 
however, quashed the part of the av.'ard which directed payment of compensation 
by the V.'orkers to the management. 
In appeal by Special Leave under Article 136, the appellants contended :-
1. The award under section 10-A of the Act savours of a private arbitration 
and is not amenable to correction under Article 226-of the Constitution. 
2. The award Of compensa_tion by the arbitrators suffers from no vice which 
can be regarded as recognised grounds for the High Court interference. 
HELD : ( 1) The expansive and extraordinary powers of the· High Court 
under Article 226, as wide as the amplitude of the language used, indiCates 
and so can affect "any person", even a private individual and be· available for 
"any other purpose", even one for which another remedy may exist. The in~ 
sertion of Article 226(1A) reiterates that writ power can be exercised against any 
person by refere:Rce to 
the 
residence of such person. 
It is one thing 
G 
to affirm the 
jurisdiction and 
another to authorise free exercise. This 
Court hns 
spelt out wise 
and clear restraints 
on the 
use 
of 
this 
extraordinary remedy and High Courts will not go beyond those wholesome 
.f-· 
H 
inhibitions except where the monstrosity of the situation or other exceptional 
circumstances cry for timely judicial interdict or mandate. [17C-E] 
2. 
An arbitrator exercising powers under section lOA can bind even those 
who are not parties to the reference or agreement and the whole exercise under 
section IOA as well as the source of the force of the award on publication 
derive. from the statute. It is legitimate to regard such an arbitrator now as 
part of the methodology of the sovereign's dispensation of justice, thus falling 
within the rainbow of statutory tribunals amenable to 
judicial 
review. The 
award in the present case is not beyond the legal reach of Article 226. [18B-C] 
• 
ROHTAS INDUSTRIES V. STAFF UNION 
13 
3. The answer to the question whether the High Court should have· exercised 
its powers under Article 226 in the present case will depend upon wl;tether the 
arbitrator has tied himslf down to obviously unsound legal proposition in reach-
ing his verdict appearing from the face of the award. The arbitrator may not 
state the law such, even then such cute silence confers no greater or subtler 
immunity on the award than plain speech. The need for speaking order, where 
considerable numbers are affec.ted in their substantial rights, may well be a facet 
of natural justice or fair

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