LexWORKERS OF THE INDUSTRY COLLIERY, DHANBAD versus MANAGEMENT OF THE INDUSTRY COLLIERY
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1962
Ajtnsr Singh
v.
The State of
Punjab.
Mahajan J.
1962
Dee. 12
428
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1953]
enmity. He stuck to that reply in the Court of Session
after fully understanding what he was asked. It is
wejl settled that every error or omission not in com-
pliance with the provisions of section 342 does not
necessarily vitiate a trial. Errors of this type fall with-
in the category of curable irregularities, and, as held
in Tara Singh's case('), the question, whether $he trial
is vitiated, in each case depends upon the degree
of the error and upon whether prejudice has been or
is likely to have been caused to the accused.
We are
of the opinion that the disregard of the provisions
of section 342 in this case is not so gross as would
justify our quashing the conviction and ordering a
retrial.
The result is that we uphold the judgment of the
High Court and dismiss the appeal.
Appeal dismissed.
Agent for the appellant: R. S. Gheba.
Agent for the respondent : G. H. Ra}adhyaksha.
WORKERS OF THE INDUS'l'RY COLLIERY,
DHANBAD
'V.
MANAGEMEN'l' OF 'l'HE INDUSTRY
COLLIERY.
[MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN, DAS and BHAGWATI JJ.]
Ind1<strial Disputes Act, 1947, ss. 20 (2) (b), 22 ( 1) ( d), 24-
Gonciliation proceedings-Withdrawal of workers-Strike after
Conciliation Officer has made his report but befo1·e it is received by
Governnient-:::Legality of strike-Chief
Labo~ir Oo1n1nissioner
whether agent of Government.
A conciliation proceeding cannot be deemed to have concluded
under s. 20 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in a case
where no settlement has been arrived at, as Soon as the Concilia-
tion Officer sends his report. It can be deemed to have concluded
only when the report is actually received by the appropriate
Governme:nt.
(1) (1951) S.C.R. 729.
;
;, .
-..
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
429
The Chief Labour Commissioner, New Delhi, is not, in the
absence of any express delegation of powers by the Central
Government, the agent of the latter for the purpose of receiving
the report of a Conciliation Officer.
•
The appellants who had sent notice of their intention to strike
declined to parti'cipate in conciliation proceedings which were
initiated by the Regional Labonr Commissioner, and the latter
sent his report to the Chief Labour Commissioner, New Delhi, on
October 22, 1949.
The report was received by the Chief Labour
Commissioner on October 25, but a copy of the report was sent by
the Chief Labour Commissioner, and received by the Ministry of
Labour, only on November 17. Meanwhile the appellants went
on strike on November 7:
Held, confirming the decision of the Industrial Tribunal, that
under s. 20 (2) (b) of tbe Act the conciliation proceeding held by
the Regional Labour Commissioner concluded only on November
17 when his report was received by the Central Government, and
as the appellants went on strike before that date, it was a strike
during the pendency of conciliation proceedings and therefore
illegal under s. 22 (1) (d) of the Act,
The provisions of several sections of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 194 7, show that time is of the essence of the Act and the re-
quirements of its relevant provisions must be pnnctually obeyed
and carried out, if the Act is to operate harmoniously.
CrvrL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal
No. 133 of 1951. Appeal by special leave granted
by the Supreme Court on the 1st December, 1950,
from the Judgment dated the 24th April, 1950, of the
Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad,
in Appeal No. 1 of 1950, arising out of Order dated
the 2nd February, 1950, of the Regional Labour
Commissioner (Central), Dhanbad.
N. 0. Chatterjee (S. L. Ohhibber, with him) for the
appellants.
S. P. Sinha (S. N. Mukherjee, with him) for the res-
pondent.
195'J. December 12. The Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
DAS J.-This appeal by special leave is directed
ll.gll.in'tit thB dBcision dated April 24, 1950, of the
Central Government Industrial Tribunal at Dhanbad
confirming the decision dated February 2, 1950, of
1962
Workers of tlte
Industry
Colliery,
Dhanbad
v.
Managerne11t of
the Industry
Colliery.
430
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1953]
J95i
the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Dhan-
bad, which had declared the one-day strike by the
ll'"orket'S of the
Industry
appellants that took place on November 7, 1949, to
·Colliery,
be an illegal strike. 'rhe relevant facts are as fol-
Dhanbad
lowsExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.