9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Power of the appropriate government to supersede a reference made to an industrial tribunal under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 2. Validity of the government's action in superseding the reference while proceedings were pending before the tribunal. 3. Legal implications of the government's actions on the industrial dispute and the role of the tribunal. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Power of the Appropriate Government to Supersede a Reference: The primary issue was whether the government could supersede a reference made to an industrial tribunal under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The court analyzed the statutory framework and concluded that the Act does not expressly confer any power on the government to cancel or supersede a reference once made. The court emphasized that the scheme of the Act, its object, and relevant provisions do not support an implied power to cancel a reference. The court held that the rule of construction under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which allows for rescinding notifications, does not apply to Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 2. Validity of the Government's Action: The government of Bihar issued a notification superseding the earlier references and combining the disputes into one, referring it anew to the tribunal. The High Court at Patna held that the government had no power to supersede the earlier notifications, quashing the impugned notification as illegal and ultra vires. The Supreme Court agreed, stating that the government's action was beyond its authority. The court noted that once a reference is made, the tribunal is seized of the dispute, and the government stands outside the reference proceedings, except for specific instances provided under the Act. 3. Legal Implications and Role of the Tribunal: The court highlighted that the policy of the Act is to secure and preserve good relations between employers and workmen and to maintain industrial peace. Once a reference is made, the tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction over the dispute. The court pointed out that the government's power to add parties to a pending dispute under Section 10(5) does not extend to canceling or superseding a reference. The court also addressed concerns about settlements reached during tribunal proceedings, stating that tribunals can make awards in terms of settlements, thus obviating the need for cancellation of references. The court concluded that the government's action in issuing the third notification was invalid. The appropriate remedy was a writ of mandamus, directing the tribunal to proceed with the original references. The appeals were dismissed, and the tribunal was instructed to expedite the pending cases. Judgment: The Supreme Court confirmed the High Court's decision, holding that the government of Bihar's notification superseding the earlier references was invalid and ultra vires. The court issued a writ of mandamus, directing the tribunal to take up the original references and dispose of them expeditiously. The appeals were dismissed with costs.
|
