9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Government of Uttar Pradesh had the power to extend the time for making the award ex post facto, i.e., after the time limit originally fixed had expired. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Power of the Government to Extend the Time for Making the Award Ex Post Facto The appeal was filed with special leave granted by the Supreme Court, restricted to the point of whether the Government of Uttar Pradesh had the power to extend the time for making the award after the originally fixed time had expired. Facts: An industrial dispute arose between the appellant company and its employees. The Governor of Uttar Pradesh, under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the dispute to the Labour Commissioner for adjudication with a deadline of April 5, 1950, to submit the award. The adjudicator, Shri M.P. Vidyarthi, was directed to submit the award by March 25, 1950, and to request an extension if needed. Additional issues were referred to the adjudicator on March 20, 1950, and March 24, 1950. The adjudicator submitted the award on April 13, 1950, eight days after the original deadline. Subsequently, on April 26, 1950, the Government extended the deadline to April 30, 1950, and later enforced the award for six months from August 1, 1950. The appellant company contended that the award was invalid as it was given after the expiry of the original time limit. Appellant's Argument: Dr. Tek Chand, representing the appellant, argued that the adjudicator's authority expired on April 5, 1950, making him functus officio. The U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, did not empower the State Government to extend the time for making the award after the original deadline had expired. The appellant cited the Judicial Committee's decision in Raja Har Narain Singh v. Chaudhrain Bhagwant Kuar, which held that a court could not extend the time for making an award after it had been filed. Respondent's Argument: The respondents argued that the Government had the authority under section 6 of the Act to fix and extend the time limit for submitting an award. They contended that the power to extend the time could be exercised even after the original deadline had expired, as supported by English case law and section 14 of the U.P. General Clauses Act, 1904. They also referred to section 21 of the U.P. General Clauses Act, arguing that the order of April 26, 1950, should be seen as an amendment or modification of the original order. Supreme Court's Analysis: The Court analyzed the relevant provisions of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the U.P. General Clauses Act, 1904. Section 6(1) of the Act required the adjudicator to submit the award within the specified time, without provisions for extending the time. The Court noted that the legislative practice was to expressly confer the power of extension of time if intended. The Court found that section 14 of the U.P. General Clauses Act did not imply a power to extend the time already specified. Additionally, section 21 did not provide for retrospective operation of amendments or modifications, meaning the order of April 26, 1950, could not validate the award made after the original deadline. Conclusion: The Supreme Court concluded that the State Government had no authority to extend the time for making the award after the original deadline had expired. The adjudicator became functus officio on the expiry of the specified time, rendering the award made on April 13, 1950, without jurisdiction and a nullity. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the award was declared null and void. No order as to costs was made. Appeal allowed.
|
