SHREE SITA RAM SUGAR CO. LTD. versus THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT AND OTHERS

Citation: [1974] 1 S.C.R. 67 · Decided: 24-04-1973 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.A. VAIDYIALINGAM · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

( 
""\ 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
67 
SHREE SITA RAM SUGAR CO. LTD. 
v. 
THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT AND OTHERS 
April 24, 1973 
[A. N. GROVER AND C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.] 
U.P. Industrial Dfaputcs Act. 
1947-Section 6-G(l }-Power of State Gov-
e11unent l'O witlitfraH• reference fronr Labour Court or Tribunal-Power is con-
fined to withdrawal of reference. for the purpose of transferring adjudication of 
the reference to another Labour Court or Tribunal. 
The appellant company retired three of its workmen and the industrial dif' 
pute thus arising was referred to the Labour Court, Gorakhpur, for adjudicatiot 
The reference was registered by the Labour Court as Adjudication Case No. 93 
of 1960. The parties filed their written statement and proceedings went on re• 
sultiD.2 in the Labour Court passing an order dated February 26, 1961 holding 
that the retirement of the three workmen was neither legal nor justified. There 
were similar disputes regarding the retirement of several other workmen and the. 
dispute relating to them was referred to the same Labour Court and this refer-
ence was registered as Adjudication Case No. 98 of 1960, The three workmen 
whose cases were the subject matter of the first reference were also included in 
the second reference. 
They applied to the Labour Court to have their names 
deleted from the second reference, 
and they were 
accordingly deleted. 
The 
Labour Court gave its award .in the second reference on February 27, !961. In 
this award the Labour Court specifically stated that it was not recording any 
'finding with regard to the three workmen covered by the first reference. 
On a 
representation made by the appellant the State Government issued a notification 
on February 28. 1961 withdrawing the first reference relating to the three afore-
said workmen. This was purported to be done under sub-section ( 1) of section 
6-G of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Even so the State Oovernn1ent 
published the award in the first reference on May 6, 1961. The appellant filed 
a writ petition in the High Court under article 226 of the Constitution -for the 
issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the award dated February 26, 
1961 
and 
also for a mandamus directing the State Government to withdraw its Notification 
dated May 6. 1961. The single Judge as well as the Division Bench decided 
a1ainst the appellant. 
In appeal before this Court, 
HEID : (i) The wording of sub-section (1) of section 6-G is capable of 
being construed as conferring on the State Government a power to withdraw 
any proceedings or to transfer a proceeding from one Labour Court or Tribunal 
to another. But having regard to the scheme of section 6-G read in the light 
of the other provisions of the Act the section will have to be in~rpreted as 
giving to the State Government only a p9wer to transfer a proceediug from one 
Labour Court to another. When section 6 makes it obligatory that an award has 
to be made by the Tribunal concerned and that it has to be published by the 
State Government within 30 days of its receipt and declares that the award on 
publication becomes fina1, it is idle to expect that the legislature intended to 
nullify thC entire proceedings by conferring an absolute power of withdrawal on 
the State- GOvernment under section 6-G. The/roper way of reading section 
6-G is to limit the power of withdrawal referre to therein only for the purpose 
of transferring proceedings from one Labour Court or Tribunal to another. [75D] 
The provisions of -s. 33B and s. 6-D of the Act did not support a contrary 
conclusion. 
Sirsilk Ltd. and Others v. 
Government of Andhra Pradesh & 
Another 
[19641 2 S.C.R. 448. distinguished. 
H 
<ii) The expression 'or' in s. 6~G (1) interposed between 'withdraw any pro· 
ceedings' or 'transfer a proceeding' will have to be understood as 'and'. [75H] 
Mazagaon Dock Ltd. v. The Com.onissioner of Income-tax and Excess Pro/itl 
Tax, (1959] S.C.R., 848 relied on. 
6$ 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1974} 1 s.r..R. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Ciyil Appeal No. 1958 of 1968. 
A 
Appeal by &pecial leave from the judgment and order dated August 
2, 1966 of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal No. 960 of 
1964. 
G. B. Pai, Bhuvnesh Kumari, O. C. Mathur,!. B. Dadachanji & Co., 
for the appeilant. 
Danial Latifii and S. Ramachandran, for respondents Nos. 4 and 5. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
VAIDIALINGAM, J. 
The short question that raises for consideratio

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