STATE OF HARYANA versus HARYANA CO-OPERATIVE TRANSPORT LTD. & ORS.

Citation: [1977] 2 S.C.R. 306 · Decided: 02-12-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
306 
STATE OF HARYANA 
v. 
HARYANA CO-OPERATIVE TRANSPORT L'TD. & ORS. 
December 2, 1976 
[Y. V. CHANDRACHUD AND P. K. GOSWAMI, JJ.] 
Constitution of India-Articles 226-227-Mentioning wrong writ-Writ of 
quo warranto-Must be specifically preyed-Whether can be challenged in col-
lateral proceedings-Industrial Disputes Act 1947-Sec. 9(1), finality of award 
of Labour Court-W lzether can be challenged by a writ petition-Challenge to 
appointment of the Judge of Labour Court. 
The first respondent, a Co-operative Transport Society terminated the services 
of respondent 3 and 4. The State of Punjab referred the dispute arising out of 
the dismissal of respondents 3 to 4 under s. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 
1947 to the Labour Court that was presided over by Mr. Das. 
On Mr. Das's· 
retirement Shri Hans Raj Gupta was appointed as the Presiding Officer of the 
Court. 
Mr. Gupta gave an award directing the reinstatement of respondents 3 
and 4 with 50 per cent back wages from the date of their dismissal until the 
date of reinstatement. 
The first respondent being aggrieved by the award filed a writ petition in 
the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution praying that the 
award given by second respondent be set aside on the ground, inter a/ia, that 
he was not qualified to become the Presiding Officer under s. 7 ( 3) of the Act 
since he did not hold any judidal office in India for not less than 7 years. 
The contention of resp9ndent No. 2 was that he held such a judicial office 
because he worked as Upper Division Clerk-cum-Head Clerk, Assistant Settle-
ment Officer and Registrar of the Pensions Appeals Tribunals. The contention 
that he held judicial office was not pressed before the Hi~h Court and in this 
Court by the State. 
The State Government, however, supported the award on 
the plea that Mr. Gupta's appointment cannot be challenged in collateral pro-
ceedings filed in the High Court for challenging the award. 
Re Toronto & Co. v. City_ of Toronto 46 Dominion Law Reports 547; Bhas-
kara Pillai and A.nr. v. State [1950] 5DLR Travancore-Cochin 382 and Quem 
Empress v. Ganga Ram ILR 16 All. 136 distinguished. 
Dismissing the appeal, 
HELD : 1. Considering the nature and course of proceedings in the instant 
case, it is impossible to hold that the challenge to Mr. Gupta's appointment was 
made in a collateral proceedjng. The appointment of Mr. Gupta could not have 
been challenged before hilI!. 
The challenge to his appointment having been 
made by a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to which 
Mr. Gupta was impleaded as a party-respondent, the challenge was made directly 
in a substantive proceeding and not in a collateral proceeding. 
Since he was 
impleaded in the writ petition he had a clear and rightful opportunity to defend 
his appciintment. [311 C-EJ 
2. The mere circumstance that the first respondent did not in so many words 
ask for a writ of quo warranto cannot justify the argument that the appointment 
was being challenged collaterally in a proceeding taken to challenge the award. 
On the averments .U, the writ petition it is clear that the main and real attack 
on the award was the ineligibility of Shri Gupta to occupy the post of a Judge 
of a Labour Court in the discharge of whose functions the award was rendered' 
by him. [311 G-H, 312A] 
~··' 
HARYANA v. HARYANA CO-OP. TRANSPORT (Chandrachud, J.) 
307 
3. The relief of certiorari asked for by the writ petition was certainly in· 
A 
appropnate but the High Court was also invited to issue such other suitable writ, 
order or direction as it deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 
There is no magic in the use of a formula. The facts necessary for challenging 
the appointment are stated clearly in the writ petition and the challenge to the 
.appointment is expressly made on the ground that the officer was not qualified 
to hold the post. 
[312A-BJ 
4. The finality of the orders of the Labour Court contemplated by s. 9 (1) 
although widely worded must be given a limited meaning so as to bar the juris-
.diction of civil courts in the ordinary exercise of their powers. It is impossible 
to construe the provisions in derogation of the remedies provided by Article 
226 and 227 of the Constitution. 
[3130-E] 
Bezparua (G.C.) v. State of Assam A:I.R.-1954 Assam 161, lagannath Vina-
yak Kale v. Ahmadi-[1958] ll LL.J. 50 (Born.) and Mewar Textile Mills Ltd. v. 
Industrial Tribuna
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.