LexTHE ENGINEERING MAZDOOR SABHA REPRESENTING WORKMEN EMPLOYED UNDER THE HIND CYCLES LTD. AND ANOTHER versus THE HIND CYCLES LTD., BOMBAY
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
I S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 625 THE ENGINEERING MAZDOOR SABHA REPRESENTING WORKMEN EMPLOYED UNDER THE HIND CYCLES LTD. AND ANOTHER v. THE HIND CYCLES LTD., BOMBAY (And Connected Appeal) (B. P. SINHA, c. J., P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. N. WANCHOO, K. C. DAfl GUPTA and J. c. SHAH, JJ.) Industrial Dispute-Reference to arbitration by "!l"'ement of parties-Arbitration award--Appeal by special leave-Compe- tence-Industrial Disputes Act, 1947( 14 of 1947). ss. 10,IOA,18-- 0onstitution of India, Art. 136. The dispute between the respondent company and its workmen was voluntarily referred to arbitration by their agree- ment dated December 3, 1959, under s. JOA of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Section IOA(2) prescribed the form of agreement which required that the parties should state that they had agreed to refer the subsisting industrial dispute to the arbi- tration of the persons tu be named in the form. Section 18(2) provided that the arbitration award shall be binding on the par- ties to the agreement. The arbitrator named by the parties entered upon the reference on December 14, 1959, and pro- nounced his award on April 8, 1960. The appellants seeking to challenge the validity of the award applied for and obtained special leave to appeaJ to the Supreme Court against the deci- sion of the arbitrator. The respondent pleaded that the appeal was not competent because the arbitrator was not a tribunal under Art. l 36 of the Constitution of India. HeU, that the decision of an arbitrator to 'vhom indus- trial disputes are voluntarily referred under s. lOA of the Indus- trial Disputes /\ct, 1947, is quasi-judicial in character and amounts t.o a dete~mination or or_der under Art. 136(1) of the Constltut1on of India, but the arbitrator is not a tribunal with- in the meaning of that Article because the State has not invest- ed hhn with_ its inherent judicial _power and the power of adju- d1cat10n which he exercises is denved by him from the agreement of the parties. Consequently, an appeal against the decision of an arbitrator under s. JOA of the Act does not lie under Art. 136 of the Constitution. 1962 Octolllr, 18 1962 l11g:~ng Ma;:door Sabha 626 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1963] SUPP. Bharat Bank Ltd., Delhi v. Employees of the Bharat Bank Ltd., Delhi, [1950] S.C.R. 459, Province of Bombayv. Ku.salda. 8. Advani & Others, [1950] S. C.R. 621 and Durga 8hankar v. Mehta v. 1'hakur Raghuraj Singh, [1955] l S. C.R. 267, relied Hind C.vcles ltd., on, Bombay Gajlndragadkar, J, 8emblc, Art. 22G of the Constitution of India under which a writ of certiorari can be issued in an appropriate case is wider than Art. 136 because the power conferred on the High Court to issue certain writs is not conditioned or limited by the require- ment that the said writs can be issued only against the orders of courts or tribunals. CrvIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 182 and 183 of 1962. Appeal by special leave from the Award dated April 8, 1960, of the Arbitrator, Bombay. Civil Appeal No. 204 of 1962 . .;\ppeal by special leave from the Award dated August 27, 1961, of the Arbitrator, Coimbatore. K. T. Sule and K. R. Ohvudhri, for the appel- lants (in G.A. Nos. 182 and 183 of 1962). 0. K. Daphtary, SoUcitor-General of India, S. K. Bose and Sardar Bahadur, for the respondent (in C. A. Nos. 182 and 183of1962). G. B~ Pai, J.B. Dadaclumji, 0. 0. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, for the appellant (in C.A. No. 204 of 1962). A. 8. R. Ohriri, JY!. K. Ramamurthi, R. K. Garg, D. P. Singh and 8. 0. Agarwala, for the respondents (in C. A. No. 204 of 1962). 1962. October 18. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GAJENDRAGADKAR, J.-These three appeals have been placed for hearing together because the respective respondents in the said appeals have raised the same preliminary objection against their compe- tence. Civil Appeals Nos. 182 and 183/1962 have 1 S.0.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 627 been filed against the award pronounced by Mr. D.V. Vyas on April 8, 1960, in a dispute between the appellants, the Engineering Mazdoor Sabha & another, and the respondent The Hind Cycles Limited, Bombay. This dispute was voluntarily referred to Mr. Vyas under s. IOA of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (No. 14 of 1947) (hereinafter called the Act), by the parties by their agreell)ent .of December 3, 1959. The Arbitrator entered upon the reference on December 14, 1959, and pronounced
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.