THE UNITED COMMERCIAL BANK LTD. versus THEIR WORKMEN

Citation: [1951] 1 S.C.R. 380 · Decided: 09-04-1951 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HARILAL JEKISUNDAS KANIA

Judgment (excerpt)

380 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1951) 
1051 
of the village, their rights under the custom should 
Ram Doon LU r.ev~ve as soon as. the rive~ come~ .down within the 
amt other. 
limits of mouza S1kha. This position certainly has 
v. 
got to be admitted but as we are concerned with the 
Radh' Sham state of affair£ existing at the date of the institution of 
and Other•. 
the suit and there is no evidence on the record as to 
the position of the river at the present moment, the 
J1.ukherjea J, 
1951 
AJ>Til 9. 
plaintiff will be entitled to a decree in the form as it 
was given by the trial judge, it being clearly under-
stood that the rights declared in this suit would be 
subject to the custom of Dhrtr Dhura which the defend-
ants may invoke if and when the proper occasion arises. 
Subject to this observation, we allow the appeal and 
restore the judgment of the trial judge. 
The plaintiff 
No. I wiJI be entitled to his costs. 
Appeal allowed. 
Agent for the appellants: R. S. Narula. 
Agent for the respondents : Tarachand Brijmohan 
Lal. 
THE UNITED COMMERCIAL BANK LTD. 
v. 
THEIR WORKMEN 
(and other cases) 
UNION OF INDIA-Intervener. 
[SHRI HARILAL KANIA C.J ., SA!YID FAZL Au, 
PATANJALI SASTRI, MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN, 
MUKHERJEA: S.R. DAS and VIVIAN BOSE JJ.J 
Industrial Disputes Act (XTV of 1947), ss. 7, 8, 12, 16-Rules 
under the Act, R. 5-Constitution of Tribunal of three membcrs-
Absence of one of three members on other duty-Absent member 
rejoining after some time-Validity of awards made during his 
absence by the two remaining members, and by all of them after 
he rejoined-Construction and effect of ss. 7, 8, 12 and Rule ~. 
The Central Government constituted an Industrial Tribunal 
under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, consisting of A, B, and C 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
381 
for deciding certain disputes and the Tribunal commenced its 
19111 
sittings in September, 1949. On the 23rd Novem\)er, 1949, the 
services of C were placed at the disposal of the Ministry of 
Thi United 
External Affairs as a member of the Indo-Pakistan Boundary 
Commercial 
Disputes Triounal, and the two remaining members, after an ob-
Banlc Ltd. 
jection raised by one side, continued to sit and hear the disputes. 
v. 
On the 20th February, 1950, C returned from the Boundary Their Workm<in. 
Disputes Tribunal and began to sit again with the other 
two members and hear the further proceedings in the case 
of disputes which were part heard and not finally decided 
on that date. On the 20th May, 1950, the Government issued a 
notification that C had " resumed charge of his duties as a mem-
ber of the All India Indu!itrial Tribunal". Some awards were 
made by A and B before the 20th February, 1950, and some 
awards were made after that date by A, Band C together. 
Held, per KANIA, C. J., MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN, DAS and 
BOSE JJ. (FAZL ALI and PATANJALI SASTRI JJ. dissenting):-
(i) when C was appointed as a member of the Boundary 
Disputes Tribunal, his services "ceased to be available" and 
there arose " a vacancy " within the meaning of Sec. 8 of the 
Industrial Disputes Act ; 
(ii) under the said section read with Rule 5 of the Industrial 
Disputes Rules, when a vacancy occurred· it was obligatory on 
the Government to notify its decision as to whether it intended 
to fill up the vacancy or not, and if the Government decided 
not to fill up the vacancy, a notification under Sec. 7 of the 
Act was essential to constitute the 
remaining members a 
Tribunal inasmuch as a Tribunal of three members is a different 
Tribunal altogether from a Tribunal consisting of two of them 
only; 
(iii) neither the fact that C began to sit again along with the 
two other members from the 20th February, 1950, nor the notifi-
cation of the 20th May, 1950, stating that Chad "resumed charge 
of his duties as a member" of that Tribunal could be treated as 
an appointment to the vacancy created on C's appointment as a 
member of the Boundary Disputes Tribunal; 
(iv) awards made by A and B after the services of C ceased 
to be available, and awards made after the 20th February, 1950, 
by A, B and C were not made by a Tribunal duly constituted 
under the Act and were void ; 
(v) since the two remaining members were not a duly con· 
stituted Tribunal and the duty to work and decide was the joint 
respomibility of all the three members who originally constituted 
the Tribunal, the matter was one of absence of jurisdiction and 
not a mere_irregularity in the conduct of p

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