9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal. 2. Non-payment of wages and bonus. 3. Refusal of work and lock-out. 4. Submission to jurisdiction and estoppel. 5. Availability of alternative remedy. Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal: The petitioner, National Coal Co. Ltd., challenged the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal to pass an award under Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The contention was that the petitioner was not a party to the industrial dispute referred to the Tribunal (Reference No. 6 of 1952) and had not been served notice of the reference. The Tribunal's jurisdiction under Section 33A is contingent upon the employer being a party to the industrial dispute and having contravened Section 33 during the pendency of proceedings. The Court found that the questions of whether the petitioner was a party to the dispute and whether notice was served were controversial and could not be resolved in a writ application under Article 226. The petitioner had not raised these jurisdictional objections before the Industrial Tribunal, which indicated submission to the Tribunal's jurisdiction. The Court held that a party cannot challenge jurisdiction after submitting to it and participating in the proceedings without objection. 2. Non-payment of Wages and Bonus: The petitioner argued that non-payment of wages and bonus did not constitute a contravention of Section 33 of the Act. Section 33 prohibits altering conditions of service or punishing workmen during the pendency of proceedings without Tribunal permission. Non-payment of wages and bonus was not considered an alteration of service conditions or punishment. The Court agreed, citing precedents that non-payment of wages and bonus should be addressed under the Payment of Wages Act, not under Section 33A. 3. Refusal of Work and Lock-out: The Tribunal found that the petitioner had refused work to the workmen, constituting a lock-out. The petitioner contended that a lock-out neither altered service conditions nor amounted to punishment under Section 33. The Court agreed, stating that lock-outs are separately addressed under Sections 23 and 24 of the Act, which prohibit and penalize illegal lock-outs. The Court concluded that the lock-out did not fall within the mischief of Section 33, rendering the Tribunal's award under Section 33A incorrect on its face. 4. Submission to Jurisdiction and Estoppel: The Court emphasized that a party submitting to the jurisdiction of a Tribunal and participating in proceedings without raising jurisdictional objections cannot later challenge the Tribunal's jurisdiction. This principle is supported by numerous authorities, including decisions where parties were precluded from challenging jurisdiction after judgment when they had the opportunity to raise objections earlier. 5. Availability of Alternative Remedy: The opposite party argued that the petitioner should not seek relief under Article 226 because an appeal against the Tribunal's award was pending before the Labour Appellate Tribunal. The Court rejected this argument, stating that the availability of an alternative remedy does not preclude the issuance of a writ when the award is found to be without jurisdiction on its face. Conclusion: The Court concluded that the Industrial Tribunal's award under Section 33A was without jurisdiction as the acts complained of did not contravene Section 33. The award was quashed, and the petitioner was entitled to costs.
|
