9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Nature of the Industrial Tribunal's functions and duties. 2. Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 136 to entertain appeals against decisions of the Industrial Tribunal. 3. Merits of the appeal, particularly concerning the alleged victimization and reinstatement of employees. 4. Procedural irregularities in the Tribunal's decision-making process. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Nature of the Industrial Tribunal's Functions and Duties: The primary issue revolves around whether the Industrial Tribunal performs judicial functions. It was observed that the Tribunal operates similarly to a judicial body, requiring evidence to be taken, witnesses examined, and penalties imposed for incorrect statements. Despite these judicial-like functions, the Tribunal is not a court in the technical sense. The Tribunal's determination requires government approval to be binding, which does not alter its quasi-judicial nature. The Tribunal's primary role is to adjudicate industrial disputes, often overriding contracts and creating new rights, which differentiates it from ordinary courts. 2. Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 136: The Supreme Court's jurisdiction under Article 136 to entertain appeals against the Tribunal's decisions was debated. The article's broad language allows the Court to entertain appeals from any tribunal's determination. The Tribunal, despite not being a court, performs judicial functions, thus falling within the scope of Article 136. However, the Court expressed reluctance to exercise this power frequently, emphasizing its use in exceptional cases only. The Tribunal's decisions, although subject to government approval, are deemed judicial proceedings, making them appealable under Article 136. 3. Merits of the Appeal: On the merits, the appeal was dismissed. The Tribunal's decision to reinstate employees was challenged on grounds of procedural errors and lack of evidence. The Supreme Court found that the Tribunal had not committed any errors justifying interference. The Tribunal's interpretation of "victimization" and its decision to reinstate employees, even those involved in an illegal strike, were within its jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that it would not act as a court of error and would only interfere in cases of grave miscarriage of justice. 4. Procedural Irregularities: The appeal highlighted procedural irregularities, including the Tribunal's decision being signed by only two members instead of three. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal must adhere to statutory requirements, and the absence of the third member's signature invalidated the award. The Tribunal's failure to follow proper procedures, such as not allowing the bank to present evidence, was also noted. These procedural lapses justified quashing the award and directing the Tribunal to re-adjudge the matter. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on the merits but quashed the Tribunal's award due to procedural irregularities. The judgment clarified the quasi-judicial nature of the Industrial Tribunal and affirmed the Supreme Court's jurisdiction under Article 136 to entertain appeals from its decisions in exceptional cases.
|
