LexVISHWAMITRA PRESS KARYALAYA versus THE WORKERS OF VISHWAMILRA PRESS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
The State o/ Punjab v, Ajriib Singh and Another. DasJ.· l9ii2 ' 'Dea~ a. 272 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1953] seriously pressed the objection of unconstitutionality based on article 15, which, in our view, was rightly rejected by the High Court. lrlthough we hold that the High Court erred on the construction they put upon article 2:2 and the appellant has succeeded on that point before us, this appeal will; nevertheless, have to be dismissed on the ground that the Tribunal was not properly constitu- ted and its order was without jurisdiction, as conced- ed by the learned So Ii ci tor-General. vVe, therefore, dismiss this appeal on that ground. We make no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed. Agent for the appellant: P. A. Mehta. VISHWAMITRA PRESS KARYALAYA v. THE WORKERS OF VISHWAMI'l'RA PRESS. THE STATJ£ OF U'l'TAR PRADESH-Intervener. [MEHll CHAND MAHAJAN, DAS and BHAOWATI JJ.] U. P. Industrial Disvutcs Act, 1947, ss. B, 4-U. P. General Clauses Act, 1904, s. JO-Industrial Tribunal, whether a "Court"- Period fixed for making award exviring on holiday-Award vro- nounced on. next working day-Validity of award. The time prescribed for making an award under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, expired on the 9th June, 1951. The Government extended the period up to 30th June, 1951. The 30th June was a public holiday and 1st July was a Sunday and the Industrial Tribunal pronounced its award on the 2nd July: Held, that an Industrial Tribunal to which a dispute is refer- red under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is a" Court" within the meaning of s. 10 of the U .P. General Clauses Act, 1904, and, as the 30th June and 1st July were holidays, the award pro- nounced on the 2nd July was not invalid on the ground that it was i;ot pronounced within the period fixed. -. . S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 273 CrvrL APPELLATE JuRrsnrcTroN: Civil Appeal 1952 No. 65 of 1952. Appeal from an award dated 17th v· h .1 is wa~n'l ra November, 1951, made by the Labour Appellate Press Karyalaya Tribunal of India, Calcutta, in Appeal No. Cal. :!80 v. of 1951. The Workers of K. P. Khaitan (Harnam Das, with appellant. K. B. Asthana for the respondents. Gopalji Mehrotra for the [ntervener. hl'm) for the 1952. December 2. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BHAGWATI J.-This is an appeal by special leave against the decision of the Labour Appellate Tribu- nal, Calcutta, upholding the award made by the State Industria.l Tribunal, Uttar Pradesh, with certain modifications. An industrial dispute aro3e between the appellant, the Vishwamitra Press Karyalaya, Kanpur, and the respondents, the workers of the Vishwamitra Press as represented by the Kanpur Samachar Patra Karani- chari Union, Kanpur, in regard to the alleged victimisation of certain workmen under the guise of retrenchment. That industrial dispute was referred to the Industrial Tribunal, by a notification dated the 24th April, 1951. The time for making the· award expired on the'9th .June, I951, and on the 9th June, 1951, a further notification was issued.extending the time for making the award up to the 30th June, 1951. The 30th June, 1951, was a public holiday and the 1st July was a Sunday. The Industrial Tribunal made its award on the 2nd July, 1951, and pronounced it in open• court on that day. It was however thought by the Uttar Pradesh Government that the award was beyond time and invalid and on the 18th July, 1951, a notification was issued extending the period up to the 3rd July, 1951. This award was challenged by the appellant before the Labour Appellate •rribu- nal. The Labour Appellate 'l'ribunal negatived the contentions of ~he appellant. The aprellant aj:>plieq Vishwamitra Press. 274 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1953] 1952 for special leave which was granted by this Court on Vishwam;t,a the 21st December, 1951, limited to the following Press Karyn.Zaya grounds : v. ~ ( 1) The Government had no power to extend the Th~ Work•~• 01 time of the making of award after the expiry of the V<BhWnm•tra • · · \\ fi d d h d d p,.ss. time ongma y xe , an t e awar ma e by the Adjudicator after such time is illegal, ultra vires, Bhagwati J. inoperative and void. (2) In any case the State Government had ex- tended the time for making the award till 30th June, J 951, and the Adjudicator's award made after that date is void. (3) That the extension of time by the Government on 21s
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.