9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved
1. Jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal (Bank Disputes) to make awards. 2. Validity of awards made by the Tribunal in the absence of one of its members. 3. Effect of a member rejoining the Tribunal after a period of absence. 4. Interpretation of sections 7, 8, 15, and 16 of the Industrial Disputes Act. Detailed Analysis Jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal (Bank Disputes) to Make Awards The primary issue was whether the Industrial Tribunal (Bank Disputes) had jurisdiction to make awards, which depended on the interpretation of sections 7, 8, 15, and 16 of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Tribunal was constituted by notifications from the Government of India, and the services of one of its members, Mr. Chandrasekhara Aiyar, ceased to be available temporarily. The Tribunal continued its proceedings with the remaining two members during his absence. Validity of Awards Made by the Tribunal in the Absence of One of Its Members The Tribunal's jurisdiction was challenged on two grounds: 1. The remaining two members needed to be re-appointed to constitute a Tribunal when Mr. Aiyar's services ceased to be available. 2. A notification under section 7 of the Industrial Disputes Act was imperative when Mr. Aiyar resumed his duties. The Court held that: - The Tribunal, originally constituted of three members, could not function with only two members without a fresh notification under section 7 of the Act. - The awards made by the two members during Mr. Aiyar's absence were void as they were not made by a duly constituted Tribunal. Effect of a Member Rejoining the Tribunal After a Period of Absence The Court considered whether Mr. Aiyar could rejoin the Tribunal without a fresh appointment. It was argued that the Tribunal should be reconstituted formally when a member's services ceased to be available and resumed. The Court found that: - The original notification constituting the Tribunal remained valid, and the Tribunal could function with all three members once Mr. Aiyar rejoined. - However, the awards made during his absence were invalid due to the lack of a proper constitution of the Tribunal during that period. Interpretation of Sections 7, 8, 15, and 16 of the Industrial Disputes Act The Court examined the relevant sections of the Industrial Disputes Act: - Section 7: Empowered the appropriate Government to constitute Industrial Tribunals and required notification of the members. - Section 8: Addressed the filling of vacancies when a member's services ceased to be available. The Court interpreted that the remaining members could not act as a Tribunal without a fresh notification if the Government chose not to fill the vacancy. - Section 15: Required the Tribunal to hold proceedings expeditiously and submit its award to the Government. - Section 16: Mandated that the award be signed by all members of the Tribunal. The Court concluded that the Tribunal's actions during the absence of one member were without jurisdiction, and the awards made during this period were void. The Tribunal needed to be properly constituted with all members present to make valid awards. Separate Judgments - Majority Judgment: Delivered by Kania C.J., Mehr Chand Mahajan, S.R. Das, and Vivian Bose JJ., concluded that the awards made in the absence of Mr. Aiyar were void and without jurisdiction. - Fazl Ali J.'s Judgment: Dissented, arguing that the Tribunal could continue its proceedings with the remaining members and that Mr. Aiyar's rejoining did not invalidate the awards. - Patanjali Sastri J.'s Judgment: Agreed with Fazl Ali J., emphasizing the flexibility in the Tribunal's functioning. - Mukherjea J.'s Judgment: Partially agreed with Fazl Ali J., but held that the awards made during Mr. Aiyar's absence were void. Conclusion The Supreme Court declared the awards made by the two members during Mr. Aiyar's absence as void, emphasizing the necessity of a properly constituted Tribunal under the Industrial Disputes Act. The final award, signed by all three members after Mr. Aiyar rejoined, was upheld.
|
