LexSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH versus LAKSHMI ICE FACTORY & OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
'• s s.c.R. SUPREME COURT REPOR'rs 59 STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. LAKSHMI ICE FACTORY & OTHERS (P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, A. K. SARKAR and K. N. WANCHOO, JJ.) lnclustrial Dispute-Alvard-Pronouncement of in open cu·urt-Ij im_peral'ive-United Provinces Industrial Disputes Act,· 1947 (U.t'. 28.oj 1947, ss . .J, G-Statutory Orders cl. 9(7). The Governmenrof U!tar Pradesh under s. 3 of the U.P. Industrial -Disputes Act, 1947, and the :;tatutory.orders framed thereunder referred certain disputes between the respondent Ice liactories .and the respective workmen to an Industrial Tribunal. The Tribunal heard the matters but failed to pronounce its award in open Court, as required under the clause 9 (7J of the Statutory Orders. Instead the Registrar of the 'l ribunal informed the lee hctories that the a ward of the Tribunal had been submitted to the Government. The award was published in the U.P. Gazette and the Regional· Conciliation Officer called upon the Ice Factories to implement the award immediately. The Ice Factories moved lhe High Court at Allahabad alleging that the award was a nullity as it had not been pronounced in open _court as required under the clause 9 (7) of ihe Statutory Orders and asking for writs to quash it. High Court issued the writs quashing the Notification publihing the award. 'The qu~stions are whether the provisions of sub-cl. ( 7) of cl. 9 of the Statutory Orders a1 e imperative or merely directory and whether that sub-clause is ultra vires as being in contliCt with the Act under which it had been framed. Held, that the clear intention of the legislature is to make it imperative that judgments should be pronounced in open court by the 'fribunal and a judgment not so pronounc- ed would therefore be a nullity. The provision in suiJ-cl.( 7) of cl. 9 of the .Statutory Order is in1perative and not d1r~ctory. Held, further, that the provisidns as to the pronounce- ment of the decision in open court contained in cl. ~ ( 7) of the Statutory Order was clearly within the po,vers contemplated in s. 3 (g) of the Act and s. 6 of the Act does not prohibit the making of such provisions. A rule duly framed under the Act requiring the Tribunal to pronounce its decision in open court is therefore not in conflict with s. 6 of the Act, Montreal Street Railway Go. v. Normandin, [1917].A. C. 170, referred to. 1962 Februa1J' 7. J9ij2 $'/alt of Utrar l'1a'ft,.'i , .. l.a~Jhlfli Ju l"r:c:o~1· GO SUPREl\JB COURT HEPOI:TS [1!)62] SUPP. C1n1. ,\1·rEJ.LA'l'E .JL•msuwTI01\: Civil Appe1ds No>. :>I and 5:.'/61 Appeals from the 1mlgrncnt ancl decree dated September :!:3, I \l5U, of the Allahabad Hi"h Court 0 (L11<'lmoll' Bench) at Lucknoll' in C. i\[. Applications :'llos. l:i (O.J.) and Hi (U .• J.J of HJ,)/ rcspcctiv<'ly. C. Ii. Auanmfo and C. P. /,n/, fur th<· Appcllanls (in both tlw a ]l]ll'a Is). A. V. Viw:l1nat.l1a Snslri'., :;nd /(, /,, Arora, for Respondent No. I (in both the appeals). 196:!. February 7. The Judgment of the Court 'l°<IS clcliv<·red Ly SAHKA!t, J.- These two appeals have been heard together. Th11 appellants in each case arc the i:ltate of t:ttar Praclcsh, for sho1 t callcll C. P. and some of its officers and th~, respondents in one appeal are Lak.ihmi Ice Factory arnl certain of it.s workers and in the other the PrakaFh kc Factory and certain of its workers. These appeals involv·e a question of construction of certain provisions of the C. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 19·17, hereafter referred to as the Act. By a Notification issued on February IU, 195G, the Government of t.:. P. referred o~rtain disput~s which had cropped up between each of the foe Factories and its respective workmen, to an Indus. trial Tribunal for adjudication. Tho details of these disputes are not material for these appeals. Tho Tribunal heard .the matters but failed to pro- nounce its award in opon court. Instead, on Xovem- bor 8, 1956, the Registrar of tho Tribunal informed the Ice }factories that the a.ward of the Tribunal had boen submitted to the Government. On Decem- ber, 15, 1956, the a.ward was published in the U. P. Gazette and it appeared from this publication that tho a.ward was dated November 8, 1956. On December 26, 1956, the Regional Conciliation Offi· cer appointed under tho Aot oallod upon the Ioe 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 61 Factories to implement the award immedhtely. Thereupon the Ice Factories moved the High Court at
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.