SARVA SHRAMIK SANGH, BOMBAY versus INDIAN HUME PIPE CO. LTD. AND ANR.

Citation: [1993] 1 S.C.R. 1050 · Decided: 12-02-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

--( ••
A 
SAR VA SHRAMIK SANGH, BOMBAY 
~ 
v. 
I
INDIAN HUME PIPE CO. LTD. AND ANR. 
• 
FEBRUARY 12, 1993 
~ •· 
B 
[KULDIP SINGH AND B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, JJ.j 
Labour Law: 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 : Sections 11 and 17-A(4)-lndustrial 
• 
c Courts/Tribunals-Not bound by technical mies of procedure-Award grant-. 
)< 
ing relief from a date anterior lo date of raising dispute-Power of-Exercise 
of such power-Co"ectness of-To be decided in the facts and circumstances 
of each case. 
-
D 
The appellant Unio!l demanded payment of dearness allowance to 
the daily-rated workmen employed in the factory of the respondent at the 
\ll 
same rate as was being paid to the monthly-rated employees with effect 
'( 
from 1.1.1964. The matter was placed before the Conciliation Officer on 
15.11.1965 and thereafter before the Conciliation Board. On 15,3.1967 the 
1;
Conciliation Board submitted its failure report. On 26.4.1968 the appel· 
~
E !ant-Union submitted a Memorandum to the Government reiterating the 
t· 
I 
said demand and claiming the benefit from 15.11.1965. The Government 
~
referred the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal. 
I"
y 
I
The Respondent-employer filed a Writ Petition challenging the 
validity of the order of reference and the High Court set aside the order 
_j
F 
of reference by consent without prejudice to the rights of the Government 
for making a fresh reference. 
On March 19, 1973 the appellant-Union submitted a demand claim· 
; 
ing the same relief with effect from 15.11.1965. The Government made a 
).. 
G reference accordingly to the Industrial Tribunal on 26.3,1973. By its 
Award dated 3.1.1977 the Tribunal directed the Respondent-employer to 
~
make payment of D.A. at the rate of 15% of the revised textile rate with 
effect from 1.1.1968. 
'
The Respondent filed a Writ Petition before the High Court cha!· 
•
H lenging the Tribunal's Award. Unable to succeed before a Single Judge, "' 
~
1050 
SHRAMIK SANGH v. HUME PIPE CO. 
1051 
__ .. 
Respondent-preferred an appeal and the Division Bench held that the A 
Tribunal had no jurisdiction to award relief to the workmen with effect 
from a date prior to the date on which the dispute was raised. Being 
aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant-union preferred the present 
appeal. 
--
--
"" 
On behalf of the appellant-Union it was contended that since it has 
been agitating for grant of D.A. of daily-rated workmen right from Nov. 
1965, the Tribunal was J"ustified in awarding the same with effect from 
1.4.1%8. 
The Respondent contended that the demand dated 26.4 ! 968 was 
never subn1itted to the fvlanagement, but was n1ad(' rlirect to the Govern~ 
n1ent which n1ade a rfference and the same \\'as set aside by the High 
Court; and that a fresh dispute was raised on 19.3.73 and so the relief was 
rightly restricted by the High Court to be effective only from that date viz. 
y 
19.3.73. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court, 
. HELD : 1. The Industrial TribunaVLabonr Court is supposed to be 
a substitute forum to the Civil Court. Broadly speaking, the relief which 
B 
c 
D 
the Civil Court could grant in an industrial dispute can be granted by the E 
Y Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court. Indeed the Industrial Tribunal/Labour 
Court is not bound by the Technical rule. of procedure which bind the 
Civil Court. Therefore it cannot be said that the Industrial Tribunal - or 
for that matter a Labour Court - has no jurisdiction to grant relief from 
a date anterior to the date on \Vhich the dispute is raised. It is oue thing 
to say that the Tribuna) has no power to grant such relief" and it is an 
altogether different thing to say that in a given case it ought not to grant 
such relier. \\11ether in a given case relier should be granted with effect 
from a date anterior to the date of raising the dispute is a matter for the 
Tribunal to decide in the facts and circumstances of' that case. 
F 
[1055H; 1056A-D] G 
J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills v. L.A. Tribunal, (1963) 2 
;.._ L.LJ. 436 - AIR 1964 SC 737, relied on. 
2. The demand raised on 19.3.73 was not a fresh demand. It was 
rci_teratiofL..6f' the den1and raised as far back as Nove1nher 1965. It is not H 
1052 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1993] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
suggested that the demand raised in November 1965 was not raised before, 
B 
or submitted to the Management. Even otherwise, the demand raised on 
19.3.73 - assuming that it was a fresh demand - was for extending the said ~ 
benefit with effect from an anteri

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