WORKMEN OF JOINT STEAMER COMPANIES versus JOINT STEAMER COMPANIES

Citation: [1964] 3 S.C.R. 456 · Decided: 29-04-1963 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

1963 
Mohan Chowdhury 
v. 
ChieJ Ct1mm issiomr 1 
Unirm Territory 
of Tripura 
Sinh• C. I. 
!9S 
A;ril 29, 
456 SUPRENl.FJ COURT REPORTS (1964] VOL. 
leaves no room for doubt that the detention order 
passed against the petitioner was intended to be con-
tinued even after the repeal of the Ordinances which 
were incorporated in the Act (LI of 1962). That 
being so, the Order of the President must have the 
effect of suspending the petitioner's right to move 
this Court for a writ of habeas corpus under Art. 32 
of the Constitution. After the petititioner had been 
deprived, for the time being, of his right to move 
this Court, it is manifest that he cannot raise any 
questions as regards the vires of the Ordinances or of 
the Rules and Orders made thereunder. In the 
result, the application is held to be not maintainable, 
and, is therefore, dismissed. 
Petition tlismi1aed. 
WORKMEN OF JOINT STEAMER 
COMPANIES 
v. 
JOINT STEAMER COMPANIES 
(P. B. GAJENDRA.GA.DJUR, K. N. WA.NCH00 
and K. C. DA.s GUPTA JJ.) 
Industrial dispute-Bonus-Industry operaiing in India 
. and Pakistan, if, form one ; .. ;egrated industrial actillity-
Tests-Full Bench Formula-A' ,,ticability to -a part only of tM, 
total operations-Inspection • 
document• by workmen if and 
when acce'8ible-Jndustrial 1 1pulu Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), 
s. 21. 
The respondent comp nies were carrying on transport 
business in the t:astern part of Lhe country in co-operation with 
each other, which continued even after the partition of India. 
The main traffic of the company in the years 1949 to 1952 was 
as before, namely, (a) traffic within India; (b) traffic withil! 
3 S.C.R. 
SUPRENIE COURT REPORTS 
457 
Pakistan and (c) traffic between India and Pakistan. The 
major portion of the large fleet of vessels in which the compa-
nies carried on their business remained in common use for 
traffic origaniting in Pakistan and for traffic originating in 
West Bengal and Assam, so that no appreciable part of the 
fleet could be classed as being in use specifically in one country 
or the other. The workmen claimed bonus for all the four 
years and the dispute was referred to the Industrial Tribunal. 
The workmen's claim was .rejected by the Tribunal and the 
order was confirmed by the. Labour Appellate Tribunal. On 
appeal by special leave, the main controversy between the 
parties in this Court was whether, the Full Bench Formula has 
to be applied on the basis of the overall results of the compa-
nies operations in India and Pakistan or on the results of the 
operations in India only. The appellants' main contention was 
that assuming that the operation in India and Pakistan formed 
parts of one integrated industrial activity, a way should still be 
found for separating the two sets of operations for the purpose 
ef the application of the Full Bench Formula. 
Held that in the present case, on applying the tests laid 
down by this Court, the operations of a company carrying on 
transport business between two different places cannot be said 
to be carried on as different and distinct industrial activities 
at these two places. 
Assooiat<d Oement Oompaniu v. Their workmen, [1959] 
S. C. R. 
925; A. 0. 0. Ltd., v. Their Workmen, 1960 (I) 
L. L.J. l; Pratap Press v. Their Workmen, 1960 (1) L. L.J. 
497;.The Management of Pak8hiraja Studio v. Their Workmen, 
1961 (3) F. L. R. 369; Fine Knitting Oo. Lid. v. I. 0. & o,.., 
1962 (1) L. L.J. 275 and D. 0. M. Ohemiool Works v. 118 
Workm•n, 1962 (1) L. L.J. 388, referred to. 
Held further, that in the present c.ase on the materials on 
record, this court was not in a position to apply the Full Bench 
to a 
only of the total operations of the ·companies 
m India and Paktstan and the Labour Appellate Tribunal was 
right in rejecting the workmen's claim for bonus for the years 
1949 to 1952. 
Subject to the protection of s. 21 of the Industrial Dis-
putes Act and in the absence of any special circumstances, the 
Tribunal, in its judicial discretion would ordinarily be justified 
in asking the employees to give to tho workmen reasonable 
11ccess to all n;_levant papers, 
/96J 
W1trim111 of l•i"r 
Sleame:t Ctmt;aitin 
v. 
I oi81 Sllam" 
C•mP•rnis 
l96S 
WMkmen of Joint 
Steam" Companies 
.. v. 
Joi•t Steamer 
!Iompqni" 
Das Gupt• J. 
458 SUPRENm COURT REPORTS [1964:1 VOL. 
In the present case however, even if the acco11nt books 
were made available to the workmen, it would be impossible 
on the materials on record to arri.ve at proper 6gun
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.