1967 (9) TMI 140 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether there has been a termination of the award, Exhibit M-6, in the manner pleaded by the Union? Held that - The discretion of the State Government, under s. 10 of the Act, is very wide. It may be that the workmen. affected by the standing orders, may not always, and in every case, Succeed in obtaining a reference to the Industrial Tribunal, on a relevant point. These are some of the circumstances for giving a right and remedy, to the workman, under the Standing Orders Act itself, but there is no indication, in the scheme of the Standing, Orders Act, that the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal, to entertain an Industrial dispute , bearing upon the standing orders of in industrial establishment, and to adjudicate upon the same, has any manner been abridged, or taken away, by the Standing Orders Act. Therefore, on this aspect, we are in agreement with the conclusions, arrived at, by the Industrial Tribunal, and the High Court. In view of our finding on the first point, that the award, Exhibit M-6 had not been terminated. it follows that the reference. made by the State Government, dated March 20,1963, in his case, is incompetent, and the Industrial Tribunal has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the same, in I.D. No. 8 of 1963. In the result, the order of the High Court is set aside, and a writ of prohibition, restraining the second respondent, from proceeding with the adjudication, in I.D. No. 8 of 1963, will issue, and the appeal allowed, to that extent. Appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Industrial Tribunal had jurisdiction to adjudicate on the dispute regarding leave benefits.
2. Whether the award (Exhibit M-6) had been terminated as per Section 19(6) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
3. Whether the provisions regarding leave in the Certified Standing Orders could be modified by the Industrial Tribunal.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal:
The appellant, a textile mill, contested the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal to adjudicate on the dispute regarding leave benefits, arguing that the provisions of the Certified Standing Orders could only be modified as per the Standing Orders Act. The Tribunal and the High Court rejected this contention, stating that the scope of the Standing Orders Act is limited and does not conflict with the Industrial Disputes Act. The Tribunal held that it could adjudicate on matters referred to it as an industrial dispute under the Act, even if they were covered by the Standing Orders.

2. Termination of the Award (Exhibit M-6):
The appellant argued that the award dealing with leave and other facilities continued to be in force as it had not been terminated by a written notice under Section 19(6) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Tribunal and the High Court found that the various correspondence between the Management and the Union indicated that the Union had terminated the award. However, the Supreme Court found that the Union did not raise any plea that the termination of the award was brought about by an oral notice. The Court emphasized that an intimation regarding the termination of an award must be fixed with reference to a particular date, which was not the case here. The Court concluded that the letter dated June 26, 1961, relied upon by the Union, did not amount to a notice of termination of the award.

3. Modification of Certified Standing Orders:
The appellant contended that the Certified Standing Orders, which included provisions for leave, could only be modified as per the Standing Orders Act. The Supreme Court discussed the relationship between the Industrial Disputes Act and the Standing Orders Act, noting that the latter is a self-contained statute. However, the Court agreed with the Union's contention that an industrial dispute could still be raised under the Industrial Disputes Act, even if it involved matters covered by the Standing Orders. The Court held that the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal to adjudicate on industrial disputes had not been abridged or taken away by the Standing Orders Act.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the reference made by the State Government was incompetent as the award (Exhibit M-6) had not been terminated. Consequently, the Industrial Tribunal had no jurisdiction to adjudicate on the dispute in I.D. No. 8 of 1963. The Court set aside the order of the High Court and issued a writ of prohibition restraining the Industrial Tribunal from proceeding with the adjudication. The appeal was allowed to this extent, with parties bearing their own costs.