LexSTRAWBOARD MANUFACTURING CO., LTD. versus GUTTA MILL WORKERS UNION
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
- S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 439 STRA"WBOARD MANUFACTURING CO., LTD. v. • GU'rTA MILL \VORKERS' UNION. THE STATE OF U. P.: INTERVENER. [MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN, DAS and BHAGWA'l'I JJ.] . U. P. Industrial Dispntes Act, 1947, s. G-U. P. General Clauses Act, 1904, ss. 14, 21-lndustrial Dispide-Reference- Power to e:ctend time for mxkinJ award-Award made after time- Validity-Subsequent extension of time-Effect. On February 18, 1950, the Governor of Uttar Pradesh refer- red an industrial dispute to the Labour Commissioner or a person nominated by him with the direction that the award shonld be submitted not later than April 5, 1950. The award, however, was m.ade on April 13, and on April 26, the Governor issued a notification' extending the time for making the award up to April 30:. Held, (i) in view of the language of s. 6 of the U .· P. Industrial Disputes Act, 194 7, anc1 in the absence of a provision like that contained in the proviso tor. 16 of the Governor's rrotification dated :lfarch 15, 1951, the State Government had no authority what- ever to ex tend the time, and the adjudicator became fnnctus officio on the expiry of the time fixed in the originn,l order of refer- ence and the award was therefore one made without jnrisdiction and a nullity. (ii) Section 14 of the U. P. General Clauses Act, 1904, did not in terms or by necessary implication give any s'uch power of e~teusion of time to the State Government. · (iii) Though the order of April 26 did ex facie purport to modify the order of Februn,i:y 18, in view of the absence of any distinct provision in s. 21 of the 'C. P. General Cln,uses Act, 1904, that the power of amendment and modification conferred on the State Government may he so exercised as to lrnve retrospective opera· tion, the order of April 26, viewed merely as an order of amend- ment'or modification, cannot, by virtue of s. 21, have retrospective effect. Baja Har Narain Singh v. Chmu]hrai11 Bhagwant Kuar (L.R. 18 I.A. u5) applied. Jetha Lal Lakshmi Chand Shah v. Amrita. Lal Ojha (I.L.R. [1938] 2 Cal. 482), Lord v. Lee (L.R. 3 Q.B. 404), Dentron v. Strong (hR. !J Q.B.117), Mny v. Harconrt (L.R. 13 Q.B.D, G88) distin- guisliocl. 57 195:! Dec. 17, 440 SUPREME COUR'l' REPORTS [1953] 195~ CrvIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Strawboard .No. 134 of 195 l. Appeal from tbe .Judgment and Manufacturing Order dated 20tb November, 1950, of tbe JJabour Co., Ltd. Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow, in Appeal No. 10 of v. 1950. Gutta J.fill !Vorker1' Union. Bakshi Tele Chand and Veda Vyasa (S. R. Kapur,. with them) for tbe appellants. Sha1tka.t Hussain for the respondent. Bishen Singh for the intervener. 1952. December 17. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DAS J.-'fhis appeal has been filed with the special leave granted by this Court on May 10, 1951. By the order granting such leave the appeal has been restricted to one point only, namely, "whether the GoYernment of Uttar Pradesh had the power to extend the time for making the award ex post facto, i.e., after the time limit originally fixed therefor had ' d ,, expire . There is no dispute 'as to the facts. An industrial dispute having arisen between the appellant com- pany and its employees, by Labour Department Notification No. 637 (S'r)/XVIII-53 (ST)/50 dated February ,18; HJ50, the Governor of Uttar Pradesh was pleased, in exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 read with section 4 of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (U. P. Act No. XXVIII of 1947), to refer the said dispute to the Labour Commissioner, U. P., or a Conciliation Officer of the State Govern- ment nominated by him for adjudication on seven several issues specified therein and to direct the adjudicator to conclude the adjudication proceedings and submit bis award to the Government not later than April 5, 1950. 'l'he Labour Commissioner by his letter No. I.M.R. 14-A nominated Shri M. P. Vidyarthi. Regional Conciliation Officer, U. P., as the adjudicator in the above dispute with a direction that he shonld submit his award by March 25, 1950, 11nd that if the proceedings were not likely to be j ---- - S.C.R. SUPREM~ COURT RE1POR1S 441 completed within that time he should move the I952 Government for extension of time at lea'lt a week be- Strawboard fore the specified date. By Notification No. 897 Manuf.icturing (ST)/XVIII-53 (S'r)/50 dated March 2·0, 1950, th"e co., Ltd. Governor wa
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.