9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226 to interfere with awards under Section 10A of the Industrial Disputes Act. 2. Validity of the award of compensation to the management for losses due to an illegal strike. 3. Applicability of common law principles, particularly the tort of conspiracy, to industrial disputes in India. 4. Remedies available under the Industrial Disputes Act for illegal strikes. Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226: The court examined whether an award under Section 10A of the Industrial Disputes Act is subject to correction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It was affirmed that the High Courts possess expansive and extraordinary powers under Article 226, which can affect any person, including private individuals, and can be invoked for any purpose, even if another remedy exists. The court cited the precedent set in Engineering Mazdoor Sabha v. Hind Cycles Ltd., where it was clarified that a writ may lie against an arbitrator's award under Article 226. The court emphasized that while the jurisdiction exists, its exercise should be judicious and restrained, only invoked in exceptional circumstances. 2. Validity of the Award of Compensation: The court scrutinized whether the High Court was justified in voiding the part of the award that directed the workers to pay compensation for losses due to the illegal strike. The arbitrators had awarded compensation based on the illegality of the strike, which they deemed a delict justifying damages. The court found this to be an error of law on the face of the award, referencing Halsbury's Laws of England, which states that an award can be set aside for an error of law apparent on its face. The court held that the arbitrators had incorrectly applied the common law tort of conspiracy without considering the specific context and legal framework of Indian industrial law. 3. Applicability of Common Law Principles: The court discussed the tort of conspiracy in English law and its relevance to Indian industrial disputes. It noted that while English common law may recognize a combination of individuals causing damage as actionable, Indian law, shaped by different historical, political, and social contexts, does not automatically adopt these principles. The court emphasized that the Indian Constitution protects the right to form associations for redressal of grievances and that the motivations behind strikes are typically to advance workers' interests, not to inflict damage on the employer. The court concluded that the arbitrators had erred in applying the tort of conspiracy to the case without adequate consideration of the workers' motives. 4. Remedies for Illegal Strikes: The court agreed with the High Court that the remedy for an illegal strike should be sought within the framework of the Industrial Disputes Act, specifically under Section 26, which provides for prosecution for starting and continuing an illegal strike. The court cited the Premier Automobiles Case, which established that the Industrial Disputes Act is a comprehensive code, and enforcement of rights under it must follow the procedures laid down within the Act. The court held that the claim for compensation and the award thereof in arbitral proceedings were invalid as they fell outside the statutory remedies provided by the Act. Conclusion: The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's decision to void the compensation award. It reiterated that while the High Courts have jurisdiction under Article 226 to interfere with arbitral awards, such power should be exercised judiciously. The court also clarified that the remedies for illegal strikes must be sought within the statutory framework of the Industrial Disputes Act, and the application of common law principles like the tort of conspiracy must be carefully adapted to the Indian context.
|
