STATE OF MADRAS versus C. P. SARATHY AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1953] 1 S.C.R. 334 · Decided: 05-12-1952 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. PATANJALI SASTRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

195• 
Darshan Singh 
V, 
The Stat~ of 
P1iiijab. 
1952 
334 
SUPREME COURT R~PORTS [1953) 
the Sessions Court, the accused would remain on bail 
on the same terms as before. 
• 
Appeals a.llowed. 
Agent for 
the appellant m Case No. 11: 
Nau.nit Lal. 
Agent 
for the appellant 
m Case No. 12: 
A. D. Mathur.· 
Agent for the respondent and the intervener: 
G. H. Rajadhyaksha. 
STATE OF MADRAS 
v. 
C. P. SARATHY AND ANO'I'HER. 
[PATANJAr;r SASTRI c.J., MUKHERJEA, 
CHANDHASEKHARA -AIYAH, VIVIAN BosE and 
GHULAM HASAN JJ.J 
lnd1lstrial Disputes Act (XIV of 1947), ss. JO (1) (c), 29-
Refercnce to Industrial ~Tribunal-Nature of ili_spnte or partieR to 
1'.t not specijied-Va,licUty of reference ancl atvard-Dema .. nds lry 
Union of ernployees of several concerns-Employers of some concerns 
accepting terrrf,S of thei.r employees-Reference a.s to rill co1~cerns­
Vakdity. 
The South Indian Cinema Employees' Association 1 a regis. 
terecl trade union whose members were the employees of the 24 
cinema houses operatillg in the l\1adras City including some of the 
employees of the Prabhat Talkies, submitted to the Labour Com-
missioner a n1emorandum setting forth certain demands against 
their emplo)~ers for increased \Vagas etc. a11d requestjng him to 
/ 
settle the disputes. 
The J_,abour Commissioner suggested certain 
f 
"minimum terms" which ,,;ere accepted by some of the com-
panies including the Prabbat · Talkies and at a meeting of the em-
ployees of the Prabhat Talkies a resolution was ·pa.ssed to the 
effect that no action be taken about the demands of the Associa-
tion. 
The Association clecidod to go on strike. Tbe Labour Com-
missioner reported to the Government, and the Government made 
·a reference to an Industrial Tribunal, the material portion of which 
was: "Whereas an induStrial dispute has arisen between t.he workers 
and m'anagement of the Cinema Talkies in the 1'1adras City in res-
pect of certain matters and whereas in the opinion of His _Excel-
lency the Governo1· of l\Iadras it is necessary, to refer the said in-
dustrial dispute for adjudication: now therefore etc." The Prabbat 
. ~ 
.. 
s.ci.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
335 
Talkies contended before the Tribunal that as there was no dis-
1952 
pute between them and their employees they should not be included 
--
in the.reference or award, but the Tribunal did not exclude them State of Madr.a~ 
and an award was passed, and the managing director of the 
v. 
Prabhat Talkies was prosecuted for non-compliance with• the 0. P. Sarathy 
award: 
and Another. 
Held by the Full Court, (i) that the Labour Commissioner's re-
port clearly showed that an industrial dispute existed between the 
management and the employees of the cinema houses; (ii) that as 
some of the workers of the Prabhat Talkies were members of the 
Union, and a reference could be made even when a dispute was 
apprehended, the Government had jurisdiction to make a refer-
ence even in respect of the Prabhat Talkies and the reference and 
the award were binding on the Prabhat Talkies. 
Held Per PA'£ANJALI SASTRI C.J., l'IIUKHERJEA, CHANDRA-
SEKHARA AIYAE and GHULAM HASAN JJ. (BOSE J. dubitante) that 
the reference to the Tribunal under s. 10 (1) of the Industrial 
Disputes Act, 194 7, cannot be held to be invalid merely because 
it did not specify the disputes or the parties between whom the 
disputes arose. Per BOSE J.-The. order of reference must be read 
with the documents which accompanied it and there was sufficient 
compliance with s. 10 (1) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act even 
if the words " the dispute" in the said clause require the Govern, 
ment to indicate the.nature of the dispute which the Tribunal is 
required to settle. Even if it is not legally necessary to indicate 
the nature of the dispute in a reference, it is desirable that that 
should be done. 
Per P ATANJALI SASTIU C.J., llfUKHERJEA, CHANDRASEKHARA . 
AIYAR and GHULAM HASAN JJ.-Though the Government will 
not be justified in making a reference under s. 10 (1) without 
satisfying itself on the facts and circumstances brought to its 
notice that an industrial dispute exists or is apprehended in rela-
tion to an establishment or a definite group of establishments 
engaged in a particular industry and it is also desirable that the 
Government should, wherever possible, indicate the nature of the 
dispute in the order of reference, it must be remembered that in 
making a reference under s. 10 (1) the Government is doing an 
adminis

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