LexTHE STATE OF BIHAR versus D.N. GANGULY & OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
i •
•
•
S.C.R.
sui'RE!IIE COURT REPORTS
1191
the decision now under challenge. It is sufficient
answer to this contention that the :Federal Court had
power under s. 3(a) (ii) to grant leave only when the
proposed appeal was against a judgment, and that,
under the definition in s. 2(b}, meant a judgment,
decree or order of a High Court in a civ ii case ; and
that on our conclusion that the decision in the appeal
under s. 19(1) (f) is not a judgment, decree or order
but an award, no order could have been passed
granting special leave under s. 3(a) (ii).
In the result, we dismiss both the appeals as
incompetent. _The parties will bear their own costs in
this Court.
Appeals dismissed.
THE STATE OF BIHAR
v.
D. N. GANGULY. & OTHERS
(VENKATARAMA_ AIYAR, GAJENDRAGADKAR
A. K. SARKAR JJ.)
and
Industrial Dispute-Supersession of adjudication pending before
industrial tribunal--V alidity-Power of appropriate Govcm111ent-
Industrial Disputes Act, I947 (XlV .of I947), s. IO(I)-General
Clames Act, r897 (ro of I897), s. ZI.
SecticJ'n ro(r) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, does not
confer on the appropriate Government the po\ver to cancel or
supersede a reference made thereunder in respect of an industrial
dispute pending adjudication by the tribunal constituted for
that purpose.
Nor cans. 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897.
vest such a po\ver by necessary iinplication.
It is well settled that the rule of construction embodied in
s. 2r 11.f the General Clauses Act can apply to the provisions of a
statufe only where the subject matter, context and effect of such
provisions are in no 'vay inconsistent ,vith such application.
So
judged it is clear that that section cannot apply to~. ro(r) of the
Industrial Disputes Act.
•
Mimyva Mills Ltd. v. Their Workmen, [r954] S. C.R. 465,•
held inapplicable.
•
]{ anskuntar
Kishanchand
v.
The Union of
India
Vc11halara111a
Aiyar ].
August 22.
•
The Stale of
'.
D .• "'l. GaHJ:u!y
and Utlio.~
•
•
1192
SUPREME COURT REPO!TS
[1959]
.. St"'i:cbo11rd .lla:111f11cl11ri'1g c:o. Lid. v. G11tta Mil! Workers'
L" mo,,, [1953] S. C. K 439, explained.
·r1u 1·cxtilc lForkcrs· Unio:t, 11nzritsai- , .. J"/1,; State of 1)unjab
a11d others, A. I. K 1057 Pun. 255 and Haro1dro11ai/1 Bose v.
Sffond !11ri11slrial Tribunal, [1958j 2 L.L.J. 198, overruled.
Soutlz l11dia11 /::stale Lahortr R('lalions Organi'salion v. 1·h~ State
of Mailras, A.I.I~. 1955 ;\[ad. 45, distinguished.
Consequently, where the appropriate Go,·ernment by two
notifications, issued one aftt·r the other, referred t\VO industrial
disputes between two batches of workmen and their employer
for adjudication to the industrial tribunal constituted for that
purpose and, thereafter, hy a third notification superseded the
two earlier notifications and the High Court, on the applications
of both the workmen and the employer under Arts. 226 and 227
of the Constitution, issued a writ of certiorari quashing that
notification an<I by a \vrit of rnancla1nus required the tribunal to
proceed expeditiously with the two references and the State
Government appealed:
Field, that the impugned notification was innlid and ultra
Yircs an<! the finding of the High Court must be affirmed.
Field, further, that since a reference under s. 10(1) of the
In<lustrial Disputes Act was in the nature of an administrat~'·e
act, the tnorc appropriate \\·rit to issue \\'ould be one of 1nanda-
n1us ancl not one in the nature of certiorari.
The Stale of Madras v. <:. P. Sarnlhy, [1953] S. C.H. 334,
referred to.
C1nr.
APPELLATE
Junrso1cTION:
Civil Appeals
~
(l>;, 358 a n<l 359 of 1957.
•
AppealH by special !ettve from the judgment and
.~
decree dated April 4, 19:j6, of the Patna High Court
in :III. .J. C. Xos. 546 and 590 of 1955 .
.!. N. Baneije.e and R. C. Prasad., for tho :ippellant
(In both appeals).
Basanta Chandra Ghose and P. K. Chaf.tfljee, for
respondents Xos. 1-10 & 12-57 in C. A. :'\o. 358,ii>7.
,lf. C. Setalrnd, Atl<miey-Genend of India, N ooni
Chakrarertt,11 and B. P. Mahe.shwari, for respondent
No. 59 in C. A. No. 358/57 and Respdt. ~o. l in"C. ·A.
Xo. 359/57.
'-If. Painail,, for respondent :Xo. 63 in C. A. :Xo. 359,'57.
1958.
August 22.
The Judgment of the CCJurt was
delivered by •
·
•
'
( .
•
•
• '
S.C.R.
SUP~EME COURT REPORTS
1193
GAJENDRAGADKAR J.-Where an industl'ia.l dispute
has been referred to a tribunal'for adjudication by the
h
1 lie State of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.