9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal to add parties to the proceedings. 2. Interpretation of Section 18(3)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 3. Whether M/s Hindustan Steel Ltd. is a necessary party to the industrial dispute. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal to add parties to the proceedings: The primary question raised in this appeal concerns the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal to add parties to the proceedings under Section 18(3)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The appellant contended that M/s Hindustan Steel Ltd. should be joined as a party to the dispute, as it held material documents and had interests common with the appellant. The Tribunal initially directed M/s Hindustan Steel Ltd. to remain present during the hearing but did not formally add it as a party. The appellant's writ petition to the Orissa High Court was dismissed as premature, leading to this appeal. 2. Interpretation of Section 18(3)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: The Court examined the provisions of Section 18(3)(b) and its historical context. Originally, Section 18(b) allowed for the binding nature of settlements and awards on all parties summoned to appear in the proceedings, implying an inherent power of the Tribunal to summon additional parties. This power was not explicitly included in Section 11(3) of the Act, which details the Tribunal's powers similar to those of a Civil Court. The Court concluded that the power to summon parties must be read as implicit in Section 18(3)(b). The Court also considered the amendments to Section 10 and Section 18(3)(b). Section 10(1)(d) now allows the appropriate Government to refer not only specific industrial disputes but also matters connected with or relevant to the dispute. Section 10(4) confines the Tribunal's jurisdiction to the points of dispute specified in the order of reference and matters incidental thereto. Section 10(5) permits the Government to add other establishments to the reference if they are likely to be interested in or affected by the dispute. 3. Whether M/s Hindustan Steel Ltd. is a necessary party to the industrial dispute: The appellant argued that M/s Hindustan Steel Ltd. was a necessary party because the liability for bonus would rest with it due to the contractual relationship between the appellant and M/s Hindustan Steel Ltd. However, the Court found that this contention raised a separate dispute between the appellant and its principal, which was foreign to the industrial dispute referred to the Tribunal. The appellant also contended that M/s Hindustan Steel Ltd. was the actual employer of the respondents. The Court noted that the appellant did not dispute the employment of the workmen. The appropriate Government had not framed the reference to include the determination of the employer, and thus, this question was not incidental to the industrial dispute. The Court concluded that the implied power under Section 18(3)(b) is limited to adding parties necessary to make the adjudication effective and enforceable. M/s Hindustan Steel Ltd. could not be regarded as a necessary party under these provisions. Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed, and the Court upheld that while Section 18(3)(b) implies the Tribunal's power to add parties, M/s Hindustan Steel Ltd. was not a necessary party in this case. The Tribunal's jurisdiction is confined to the terms of reference, and the addition of parties must be essential to the adjudication of the industrial dispute.
|
