THE SAWATRAM RAMPRASAD MILLS CO. LTD. versus BALIRAM UKANDAJI AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1966] 1 S.C.R. 764 · Decided: 09-09-1965 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

THE SAWATRAM RAMPRASAD MILLS CO. LTD. 
A 
;: . 
BALIRAM UKANDAJI AND ANOTHER 
September 9, 1965 
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J., K. N. WANCHOO, 
M. H!DAYATULLAH, J. c. SHAii AND s. M. SIKRI, JJ.] 
Industrial Disputes Act (14 of 1947), ss. 251, 31 and 33C-~~tate Act 
applicable ro industry-AppLicat'on /or compensation for lay uff-Juris-
dlction to decide. 
The respondents, who were the workmen of the appellant, applied to 
the Second Labour Court, Bombay, under s. 33C(l) of the Industrial Dis-
putes Act, 1947, claiming compensation for lay-off during a certain period. 
The appellant contended that : ( i) the Labour Court had no jurisdiction 
as the dispute fell to be tried under the C.P. and Berar Industrial Disputes 
(Settlement) Act, 1947; and (ii) the application under s. 33C was incom. 
pctent, hccause, it was not a claim for money due and caJ::ulations had to 
be made for ascertaining the money due. The Labour Court, a• well as the 
High Coun under Arts, 226 and 227 of the Constitution, rejected the 
contcnuons. 
Jn the appeal lo this Court. 
HELD: (i) The argument that tbe controversy was wrongly before the 
Labour Court was entirely erroneous. 
Chapter V-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, which was inserted by 1. 3 
of the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1953, is the only Chapter in 
which there is provision regarding lay off or compensa1ion fur lay off. 
Though the C.P. and Berar Act applies to the textile indu,try, it contaim 
no provision either for recovery of money or for compensalion for lay 
off and 1hey are not matters over which the C.P. and Berar Act has any 
jurisdiction. 
Therefore, if a workman has a claim for lay off, it c~n only 
come up for decision under the Jodusnial Disputes Act. 
Even if ss. 31 
and 25J save the application of the C.P. and Berar Act, they do so, subject 
to the condition that the question of lay-0ff must be decided in accordance 
with Chapter V-A. 
Since s. 33C provides that a dispute for any money 
due under Chapter V-A has to go before the appropriate Government or 
its delegate, and since the delegate is the Second Labour Court, the res-
pondents were entitled to go before the Labour Court to realise money 
due from the appellant under Oiapter V-A. [769 F] 
(ii) It is not es.<!ential that the claim which can be brought before Ille 
Government or its delegate under s. 33C(I) must always be for a predeter-
mined sum. [769 G-H] 
Kays Con.<truotlon Co. (P) Ltd. v. State of U.P. & Ors. [196S] 2 
S.C.R. 276, followed. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 525 of 
1964. 
Appeal from the judgment and order dated August 25, 1962 
of the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) at Nagpur in Special 
Civil Application No. 360 of 1961. 
R 
c 
)) 
G 
I I 
.... 
-
• 
SAWATRAM MILLS v. BALIRAM (Hidayatullah, I.) 
765 
A 
A. S. Bobde,, G. L. Sanghi and Sardar Bahadur, for the 
appellant. 
Janard{[ll Sharma for respondent No. 1. 
H. W. Dhabe and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for the intervener. 
B 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Hidayatullah, J. In this appeal by 
certificate against the 
judgment of the Bombay High Court dated August 25, 1962 the 
appellant is the Sawatram Ramprasad Mills Co., Ltd., Akola 
and the respondents two of the workmen of the Mills. 
The 
c respondents are claiming from the Mills compensation for. lay 
off from March 5, 1960 to October 22, 1960. The proceedin~ 
were commenced by an application to the Second Labour Court, 
Bombay under s. 33C(l) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 
(Act XIV of 1947). The Mills objected on various grounds 
including firstly that the Second Labour Court had no jurisdic-
D tion to hear the case as the dispute fell to be tried under the 
C.P. & Berar Industrial Disputes (Settlement) Act, 1947 and, 
secondly, that the application under s. 33C, in any event, was 
incompetent. 
The Second Labour Court held against the Mills 
on both the grounds. 
The Mills applied to the High Court of 
Bombay under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution but by the 
E judgment under appeal their application was dismissed. It may 
be pointed out here that there were similar applications for com-
pensation for lay off by the other workmen of the Mills and on 
this preliminary point they were all heard together. 
In this Court. only these two grounds were urged. The con-
F tention on behalf of the Mills on the first ground was two-fold. 
The Mills attempted to establish that the dispute could not be 
tried under the Central Act but only under the C.P.

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.