1953 (10) TMI 39 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction and error apparent on the face of the record.
2. Interim award and its implications.
3. Competence of appeal from the interim award.
4. Interpretation of Section 17A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
5. Remedies under statutory framework versus Article 226 of the Constitution.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction and Error Apparent on the Face of the Record:
The core issue in this appeal was whether the interim award passed by the industrial tribunal was in excess of jurisdiction and contained an error apparent on the face of the record. The High Court examined the interim award and the observations of the learned judge, concluding that no infirmity vitiated the award. The tribunal was found to have acted within its jurisdiction by considering whether the twenty-eight workmen discharged by the employer were to be actually retrenched in pursuance of the Chief Engineer's report and according to industrial law principles.

2. Interim Award and Its Implications:
The tribunal's interim award directed the management to pay arrears and continue paying wages to the retrenched or dismissed workers until retrenchment, if found necessary, was given effect to. The High Court clarified that the tribunal's reference to the resolution was to place the dispute in its proper context and counter the employer's contention that interim relief was precluded by the resolution's wording. The tribunal's approach was deemed proper, and its conclusion was within the ambit of the issues referred.

3. Competence of Appeal from the Interim Award:
The High Court addressed doubts regarding the competence of an appeal from the interim award. It was determined that an appeal was competent under Section 2(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and Section 7 of the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950. The court cited precedent (Punjab National Bank v. A. N. Sen) to affirm that the matter was beyond controversy.

4. Interpretation of Section 17A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947:
The High Court addressed the argument that the interim award's stipulation for payment of arrears within a week violated Section 17A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which mandates that an award becomes enforceable only after 30 days from its publication. The court distinguished between the date an award becomes enforceable and the date it comes into operation, citing Haldar's Indian Law of Industrial Disputes. The court clarified that the directives in the award, though operative, would not be enforceable until the statutory period had lapsed.

5. Remedies under Statutory Framework versus Article 226 of the Constitution:
The High Court emphasized that the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950, form a self-contained code with adequate machinery for resolving industrial disputes. The court advised that grievances should be addressed within the statutory framework rather than through Article 226 of the Constitution. The court underscored the importance of allowing industrial tribunals to discharge their duties without undue interference to maintain industrial peace.

Conclusion:
The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment under appeal, and awarded costs to the appellant. The court reaffirmed the importance of resolving industrial disputes within the statutory framework and cautioned against using Article 226 to preserve outdated concepts of contractual rights in labor relations.