LexTHE ATLAS CYCLE INDUSTRIES, LTD., SONEPAT versus THEIR WORKMEN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
3 S.C.R. S.UPREME COUB,T REPORTS 89 THE ATLAS CYCLE INDUSTRIES, LTD., SONEPAT . v. THEIR WORKMEN (B. P. SINHA, C .. J., K. SUBBA RAO, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, J. R. MuDHOLKAR and T. L. VENKATARAMA AIYAR, JJ.) Industrial Dispute-Constitution of Tribunal-Quali- fications of members-"(,!ua/ified for appointment as a Judge of a High Court''. meaning of-Validity of Reference-Indus- trial Dispute., (Punjab Amendment) Act, l!J57(Punj.8 of 1957), s. 3-Industriat Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), s. 7 (3) (c)- Constitution of India, Arts.14, 165,217. On Iiebruary 14, 1955, the Government of Punjab refe- rred certain disputes between the appellant company and its workmen to the Industrial Tribunal which had been consti- tuted on August 29, 1953, by a notification issued under s. 7 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, by which G, an Advo- cate, was appointed as the Industrial Tribunal for Punjab. When the reference was pending the Act was amended. The Amendment Act inter alia repealed s. 7 of the principal Act and replaced it by ss. 7A, 7B and 7C, and bys. 30 provided for a saving clause in respect of the proceedings pending before the Tribunal constituted under the principal Act. On April 19, 1957, the Punjab Government issued a notifica- tion under s. 7 of the Act and s. 30 of the Amendment Act extending the life of the Tribunal constituted under the repealed s. 7 and also extending the term of G as the member. On the same date another notification was issued under s. 7A of the Act constituting a new Tribunal and appointing G as the Presiding Officer up to June 3, 1957. Under s. 7C (b) the age of retirement for members '\Vas fixed at sixty five and under that provision G would have to retire by June 3, 1957. The Punjab Government intervened and passed the Indus- trial Disputes (Punjab Amendment) Act, 1957, raising the age of retirement of members to sixty seven years. Af:er G had retired on June 3; 1959, the Punjab Government issued a notification appointing another person as the Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal. The appellant challenged the legality of the reference on the grounds, inter alia, ( l) that G was not qualified to be appointed to the Tribunal under s. 7 (3) (c) of the Act, as he was over sixty years and, therefore, the reference to him dated 19~! February.!. 1962 Tht Af/a_1 C11clt lt:d1otrif.1, ltd., So11tpat v. J l1eir M'orAmen Venkalaroma AV·ar J. 90 SUPREME CO"CH'J. Rl!,l'ORTS [1962]. St:PP. l;cbruary 14, 1955, \\'as iucon1petcnt, and :2) that the Indus- u·ial Disputes (Punjab A1ne11drnent) Acl, 19j7, \vas passed \\'llh a view to ·)cnclit a single individual, G, an<l, therefore, \Vas void as offeatiing Art. l•t of the Constitution of India. He/cl, (I) s. 7(3)(c) of the Industrial Dispute; Act, 1~17, did not irnport any qualification based on the age of the periOJl to be appointc<l, and that the appointrnent of(} on J\ugust 2~, l ~j~., \Vas valid under that section. On the true constn1ction of 1\rt. 217 of the Constitu- tion of India, the prescription of age therein is a condition attached to the duration of the office and not a "qualifica· tiou-'' fOr appoi11tn1cnt to it. G.D. Karkare v. 1'.L. Shevd., LL.IL [ 19'J2j :"lag. 409 and l'mbhudayal v. State of Punjab, A. I. R. 1959 Punj. 460, approved. (2) the Industrial Disputes (Punjab Amendment) Act, I Y5 7, did not contravene Art. 14 of the Constitution, because though the occassion \\.'hich inspired the cuar.tment of the statute might he: to benefit an individual, it was of g~ncral application and could not therefore be held to be discrimina- tory. Ameeruni8'a v ... M ehboob,[ 19531 S.C.R. ·10.J., distinguished. Crvn, APPELLATE J umsmcTrox: Civil Appeal Xo. 188 of J 961. A1,peal by special lea\'e from the judgment and order dated Septemher IJ,19.'i!l, of tho Indus- trial 'l'ribnnal, Punjab, Patiala in Reference No. 30 of 195i. · G. S. Pathak, J.B. 1Jarlacha11ji, 0. C .. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, for the appellants. Bawa Shivcharan Singh and Jam1rdan Sharma, for tho respondents. 1962. l!'ebruary 8. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATAHAMA AIYAR, .J.-This is an appeal by special lenve against the Order of the Industrial Tribunal, Punjab, dated September 11, 1959, in Reference No. ::lO of 1957, overruling certain preli- minary objections raised by the appellant to the 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 91 - jurisidiction of the Tribunal to hear t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.