LexTHE REMINGTON RAND OF INDIA LTD. versus THE WORKMEN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
164
THE REMINGTON RAND OF INDIA LTD.
A
v.
THE WORKMEN
August 11. 1967
[K. N. WANCHOO, C. J. AND G. K. MITIER, J.]
B
Industrial Disputes Act (14 of 1947), s. 17(1)-Pub\ication of the
award within 30 days of its receipt-If mandatO'l'y.
Section 17(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, makes it obli-
gatory on the appropriate Government to pub!iish the award received
by it from the Industrial Tribunal; but, the provision in the section
as to time, that the Government shall publish it within a period of
thirty days from the date of its receipt, is merely directory and not C
mandatory. Therefore, where the Government received the award
-on 14th October 1966 and published it in the Gazette on the 15th
November 1966, the award did not cease to be enforceable. [166F-G]
Observations in The Sirsi!k Ltd. v. Government of Andhra Pra-
desh, (19641 2 S.C.R. 448, 452, explained.
The State of Uttar Pradesh & Others v. Babu Ram Upadhya, D
[1961] 2 S.C.R. 679, 710, followed.
Erume!i Estate v. Industrial Tribunal, (1962] II L.L.J. 144, re-
ferred to.
·
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 548 of
1967.
Appeal by special leave from the award dated October 5, 1966 E
of the Industrial Tribunal, Alleppey in Industrial Dispute No. 9
of 1965.
H. R. Gokhale and D. _N. Gupta, for the appellant.
M. K. Ramamurthi, Shyamala Pappu, Vineet Kumar and R.
Nagaratnam, for the respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Mitter, J.-This appeal by the Remington Rand of India Ltd.
against their workmen arises out of an award dated 5th October,
1965 made by the Industrial Tribunal, Alleppey published in the
Kerala Gazette dated 15th November, 1966.
F
The first point taken against this a.ward is that it cannot G
be given effect to as it was published beyond the period fixed
in the Act. The notification accompanying the gazette publi-
cation stated that Government had received the award on 14th
October, 1966. It was argued by Mr. Gokhale that in terms of s.
170) of the Industrial Disputes Act the award had to be published
"within a period of thirty days from the date of its receipt by the B
appropriate Government". According to learned
counsel, the
award having reached Government on 14th October. 1966 it should
ha.ve been published at the latest on 12th N_ovember, 1966 as s. 17
(l) of the Act was mandatory. Our attention was also drawn to
•
REMINGTON RAND V. WORKMEN (Afitwr, J.)
1611
A sub-s. (2) of s. 17 according to which it is only the award published
under sub-s. (I) of s. 17 that is final and cannot be called in ques-
tion by any court in any manner. We were also referred to s. 17-A
and s. 19. Under sub-s. (1) of s. 17-A an award becomes enforce-
able on the expiry of thirty days from the date of its publication
under s. 17 and under sub-s. (3) of s. 19 an award is to remain in
operation for a period of one year from the date on which the
B award becomes enforceable under s. 17-A. From all these provisions,
it was argued tha.t the limits of time mentioned in the sections were"
mandatory and not directory and if an award was published
beyond the period of thirty days, in contravention of s. 17(1) it
could not be given effect to. To fortify his argument, learned
counsel relied on certain observations of this Court in The Sirsilk
C Ltd. v. Government of Andhra Pradesh.(') In that case, there was
an order referring certain disputes between the appellant and its
workmen to the Industrial Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh. The Tribu-
nal sent its award to Government in September 1957. Before the
Government could publish the award, the parties to the dispute
came to a settlement and on 1st October, 1957 a letter was written
to the Government jointly on behalf of the employer and the em-
D ployees intimating that the dispute which had been pending before
the Tribunal had been settled aiid
a, request was made to
Government not to publish the award. · Government expres-
sed its inability to withhold the publication taking the view
that s. 17 of the Act was mandatory. The appellants filed
writ petitions before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh under Art.
E 226 of the Constitution praying that Government might be direct-
ed not to publish the award sent to it by the Industrial Tribunal.
The High Court held that s. 17 was mandatory and it was. not
open to Government to withhold publication. The contention on
behalf of the appellants was that s. 17 providing for the publication
of Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.