WORKMEN OF SHRI RANGAVILAS MOTORS (P) LTD. & ANR versus SHRI RANGAVILAS MOTORS (PJ LTD. AND ORS.

Citation: [1967] 2 S.C.R. 528 · Decided: 01-02-1967 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HIDAYATULLAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

WORKMEN OF SHRI RANGAVILAS :\IOTORS (Pl LTD. 
A 
& ANR. 
I' 
SHRI RANGAVILAS MOTORS (PJ LTD. AND ORS. 
February I, 1967 
[M. H!DAYATULLAH, s. M. S!KRI AND c. A. 
YAIDIALl~GAM, JJ.] 
/ltdustrial Disputes Act (14 of 1947), s. 10(1) (c) and (d) prol'/sO (I) 
"Afitcted", if means "inttrested''-Order of reference-Whe1lier should 
s!ale why reference was niade to U1bour ('our1--:'Appropria:e GJ1·rrn .. 
nrent," tut for deciding, 
B 
The second appellant was a \\'Orkman in the "~)rk.,hop of ihc Jir-;t res-
C 
pondent company in its Bangalore branch in the Mysore S1a10. 
The head· 
office of the Company at Krishnagiri, in the Madras State, transferred him 
to Krishnagiri, contrary to the agreemeru that he would not be transferred 
from Rangalore for ten years. 
On the workman raising objections, !he 
Company removed him from service. 
The Krishnagiri Motor Workers' 
Union, a oiajority of whose members numbering more than unc hundrcJ 
were employees of the Company, took u~ the workman's grievance, ond 
the Government of Mvsore referred the rndus'rial dispute to the Labour 
D 
Court under a. IO(l)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 
One of 
the qu~stions referred was : whether the order of :ransfer wus illegal and 
if so, whether the workman was entitled to "reinstatement in the Banga· 
lore branch with benefits of back wages". 
The Labour Court ordered 
the reinstatement of th¢ workman in the Bangalore branch. 
The Com· 
pany challenged the award by a writ petition in the High Court. 
The 
High Court while holding that the Mysore Government was the appro-
E 
priate Government to make the reference, quashed the 
award on 
the 
grounds : (1) that the legality of the removal of the workman was not the 
subject matter of reference, and 
(2) that the 
reference to the Labour 
Court could not be justified under s. IO(l)(c), b..:ause the dispute fell 
within the Third and not the Second Schedule to the Act; nor under the 
first proviso to s. IO(l)(d), because, the Government did not act under 
that proviso, and because, more than one hundred persons were interest-
ed in and the.refore 
likely to be affected by the dispute. 
F 
In 
appeal 
to 
this 
Court, 
the 
Company 
sought 
to 
support 
the judgment of the High Court also on the ground that the My;ore 
Government was not the appropriate Government to make the reference. 
HELD : (I) The legality of the termination of the service of the 
workman wa• included in the order of reference. (532 D-E] 
The words "with benefit of hack wages" coupled with the word "re· 
G 
ins1atement" a .. e <1.ppropriate only to a case of removal. 
()n the facls of 
the cac:;e, the transfer of the workman v.·as illegal and so, his removal from 
senice should be set aside and he should be reinstated with benefits of 
back wa¥cs. [532 F-0) 
(2) The reference to the Labour Court was valid under the first pro· 
viso to s. IO(l)(d). (533 HJ 
(a) High Court misinterpreted t~ proviso hy 
equating 
the 
two 
words interested and affected. 
The members of the Union which spon-
sored the cnu•e of the workman were in1'rtsted in the dispute, but they 
would not necesserily be affected by the dispute. [533 F-0) 
" 
• 
WORKMEN V. RANGAVILAS MOTORS LTD. (Sikri, /.) 
529 
A 
(b) It is not necessary that the order of reference should expressly 
B 
c 
D 
E 
r 
G 
H 
stale that it was because of the proviso that the reference was being made 
to the Labour Court. If it could be justified on the facts, there is nothing 
in the Act which makes such a reference invalid. (533 B-FJ 
(3) The Mysore Government was the appropriate Government to make 
the reference, because, the subject matter of the dispute substantially arose 
within the jurisdiction of the Mvsore Government. (534 HJ 
The proper question to raise is : where did the dispute arise and not 
where was the dispute sponsored : that is, whether there is a nexus bet-
ween the dispute and the territory of the State making the reference. 
Ordinarily, if there is a separate establishment and the workman is work-
ing in that establishment, the dispute would arise at that place. [534 A-
B] 
Indian Cubie Co. Ltd. v. Its Workmen, [1962) Supp. 3 S.C.R. 589, 
followed. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1065 of 
1965. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
February 27, 1963 of the Mysore High Court in Writ Petition No. 
1096 of 1961. 
M. K. Ramamurthi, for the appellants. 
O. P. Malhotra, P. C. Bhathari and O. C. Mathur, for respon-
dent No

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