LexTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH versus M/S SWADESHI COTTON MILLS CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 973 to record any judgment of acquittal or conviction. 1957 We, accordingly, allow the appeal, set aside the Sashi Mohan judgment of the High Court and hold that the refer-Debnath and Other -ence under s. 307 to the High Court was incompetent. Th .. vt.t if A t. h . h t' 1 e .,, a e o ques ion as arisen as to w at consequen 1a West Bengal ·order should be passed by this Court as the result of Imam J. -0ur conclusion that the reference under s. 307 to the High Court was incompetent and the appeal succeed- ing. The High Court should have rejected the refer- .ence as incompetent and remitted the case to the Additional Sessions Judge for disposal according to law. We emphasise the absolute need for making a <:ompetent reference under s. 307 of the Code and the -case being remitted to the Court making the reference .as soon as :possible if an incompetent reference is made in order to avoid legal complications, , unnecessary waste of time and money and harassment to the ac-, -cused. In this case the letter of reference is dated .June 7, 1954, that is, more than three years ago. The -occurrence took place on October 21, 1953. After such lapse of time we will not order that the case be re- turned to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge 10f Alipur for disposal according to law, particularly as we are informed that the Judge who made the re- ference to the High Court has retired from service and it is doubtful whether, in law, his successor can at all deal with the case. In the circumstances of this parti- icular case, therefore, the only order which we pass is :that the reference being incompetent is rejected. Appeal allowed. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. :M/S. SWADESHI COTTON MILLS CO., LTD., AND ANOTHER (and connected appeal) (BHAGWATI, JAFER IMAM and GAJENDRAGADKAR JJ.) Industrial Dispute-Awards made beyond specified time-Validity-Provision for· ~nlargement of time and 1957 November, 20. 1957 The State of Lttar Pradesh v. Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co., Ltd •• and Another 974 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1958 Ji validation-Construction-Uttar Pradesh Industrial .Dis-- putes Act, 1947 (U.P. 27 of 1947), s. 6-A-Utta'I' Pradesh Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Ordinance, 1953 (U.P. Ordinance I of 1953) s. 3. Clause 16 of the General Order No. 615 made by the Governor on March 15, 1951, under the Uttar Pradesh In- dustrial Disputes Act, 1947, provided that the decision of the Tribunal or Adjudicator shall be pronounced within 40 days from the date of reference. By orders dated August 19, 1952, and January 20, 1953, the Governor referred two industrial disputes for adjudication. The references did not specify the time within which the awards were to be sub- mitted but stated that the disputes were to be adjudicated in accordance with the provisions of Order No. 615. In the first reference the period for making the award was extended from time to time up to March 10, 1953, but in the second reference the time was not extended. On February 18, 1953, before the awards were made, cl. 16 of Order No. 615 was amended and the time of 40 days wns altered to 180 days. The award in the first case was made on April 17, 1953, beyond 180 days of the reference, and in the second case on June 26, 1953, beyond 40 days of lhe reference but within 180 days thereof. On May 22, 1953, the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Ordi- nance, 1951, came into force which conferred, with retros~ pective effect, power on the State Government to enlarge, from time to time, the period for making an award and which also validated certain awards not made within the time originally fixed for making them. The Labour Appellate Tribunal held that the two awards were not valid in law as they had not been made within time. It was contended by the appellant that as cl. 16 of the Order No. 615 had been amended the orders of reference must be construed as specifying 180 days within which the awards were to be submitted, and that, in any case, the awarde were validated by s. 3 of the Ordinance. Held, that the award in the first case was submitted beyond time and was invalid and could not be validated by s. 3 of the Ordinance but that the award in the second case, though submitted beyond time, was validated by s. 3 (2) of the Ordinance. The Act required the awards to be submitted within a specified time and although the orders of reference spe
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.