9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Scope of Section 33-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 2. Requirement of giving an opportunity to the management before transferring a case. 3. Validity of reasons given by the Government for transferring the case. Summary: Scope of Section 33-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: The appeal raises an important question regarding the scope of Section 33-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Section 33-B provides the appropriate Government with the power to withdraw any proceedings pending before a labour court or Tribunal and transfer it for disposal to another labour court or Tribunal. This power can be exercised suo motu or on representations of the parties. The expression 'may' in sub-section (1) of Section 33-B makes it discretionary for the appropriate Government to decide whether to exercise this power. However, once a decision is taken to transfer a pending case, the requirement of giving reasons becomes mandatory. The authority is under a legal obligation to record reasons in support of its decision, and failure to give reasons or giving reasons not germane would be fatal to the decision. Requirement of Giving an Opportunity to the Management: The key question is whether the Government should have given an opportunity to the management before transferring the case from the Labour Court, Dhanbad to Labour Court, Patna. The Punjab and Madras High Courts have expressed the view that the power to transfer a pending case under Section 33-B is quasi-judicial, and the appropriate Government cannot transfer a case based on the allegations of one party without giving a reasonable opportunity to the other party to represent its point of view. However, the High Courts of Calcutta, Andhra Pradesh, and Allahabad have taken a contrary view, stating that Section 33-B does not contemplate any notice being given before a transfer is made. The Supreme Court emphasized that fairness in procedure is a fundamental principle of good administration, and the State functionaries must act fairly and reasonably. The denial of an opportunity to the management to represent its point of view is a fatal flaw in the Government's decision. Validity of Reasons Given by the Government: The Government transferred the case based on the workman's representation that it would be inconvenient for him to attend the Labour Court at Dhanbad regularly due to his residence at Hajipur. However, evidence showed that the workman and his family were still residing in a colony quarter at Dhanbad, and his children were studying in a nearby school. The workman did not produce any proof of his residence near Patna and did not seriously dispute the documents annexed to the Special Leave Petition. The Supreme Court found that the Government was misled by the workman's representation and quashed the notification transferring the case. Conclusion: The appeal was allowed, and the notification dated August 8, 1988, transferring the case from the Labour Court, Dhanbad to the Labour Court, Patna, was quashed. The Labour Court, Dhanbad, was directed to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible. No order as to costs was made.
|
