9911796707
TMI Blog1951 (4) TMI 25X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... liminary issue. 'the decision depends on the true construction of sections 7, 8, 15 and 16 of the Industrial Disputes Act. On this question, the agreed statement of facts shows that by a notification of the Government of India dated the 13th June, 1949, the Central Government constituted an Industrial Tribunal 'for the adjudication of industrial disputes in banking companies consisting of Mr. K.C. Sen, chairman, Mr. S.P. Varma and Mr. J.N. Mazumdar. A second notification dated the 24th August, 1949, was thereafter issued as follows : In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 8 of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Central Government was pleased to appoint Mr. N. Chandrasekhara Aiyar as a member of the Industrial Tribunal constituted by the notifications of the Government of India in the Ministry of Labour dated the lath June, 1949, in the place of Mr. S.P. Varma whose services have ceased to be available. The Tribunal commenced its regular sittings at Bombay from the 12th to the 16th of September, 1949. It thereafter sat at Delhi and Patna between the 19th September, 1949, and 3rd April, 1950. Further sittings were held, at some of which Mr. Mazumdar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tes Act. The argument is that in the absence of Mr. Chandrasekhara Aiyar the two members had no jurisdiction to hear anything at all without the appropriate notification and that Mr. Chandrasekhara Aiyar's services having ceased to be available on the 23rd of November, 1949. he cannot sit again with the other two members to form the Tribunal in the absence of a notification under section 7. In order to appreciate the correct position, it is necessary to consider the scheme of the Industrial Disputes Act. It envisages the establishment of a Conciliation Board, a Court of Inquiry and a Tribunal for adjudication. Relevant portions of sections 5, 6, 7, 8, 15 and 16 of the Act which only are material for the present discussion run as follows: - 5. (1) The appropriate Government may as occasion arises by notification in the official Gazette constitute a Board of Conciliation for promoting the settlement of an industrial dispute. (2) A Board shall consist of a chairman and two or four other members, as the appropriate Government thinks fit. (3) The chairman shall be an independent person and the other members shall be persons appointed in equal numbers to represent the parti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppoint another independent person to fill the vacancy, and the proceedings shall be continued before the Board, Court or Tribunal so reconstituted. (2) Where a Court or Tribunal consists of one person only and his services cease to be available the appropriate Government shall appoint another independent person in his place, and the proceedings shall be continued before the person so appointed. (3) Where the services of any member of a Board other than the chairman have ceased to be available, the appropriate Government shall appoint in the manner specified in sub-section (3) of section 5 another person to take his place, and the proceedings shall be continued before the Board so reconstituted. 15. (1) Where an industrial dispute has been referred to a Tribunal for adjudication, it shall hold its proceedings expeditiously and shall, as soon as practicable on the conclusion thereof, submit its award to the appropriate Government. (2) On receipt of such award, the appropriate Government shall by order in writing declare the award to be binding: * * * (4) Save as provided in the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 19, an award declared to be binding under this secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... more industrial tribunals having the functions allotted to it under the Act. Sub clause (2) provides that a Tribunal shall consist of such number of members as the appropriate Government thinks fit. This clause therefore authorizes the appropriate Government to fix the number of members which will constitute the Tribunal. Sub-clause (3) and the proviso deal with the qualifications of individuals to be members with which we are not concerned. Although in this section there is no provision like sections 5 (1) and 6 (1) requiring a notification of the constitution of the Tribunal in the official Gazette, the deficiency is made up by rule 5 of the Industrial Disputes Rules; 1949, framed by the Government under section 38 of the Act. The rule provides that the appointment of a Board, Court or Tribunal together with the names of the persons constituting the Board, Court or Tribunal' shall be notified in the official Gazette. It is therefore obligatory on the appropriate Government to notify the composition of the Tribunal and also the names of the persons constituting the same. In respect of a Tribunal which is entrusted with the work of adjudicating upon disputes between employers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t members were going to constitute the Tribunal. We are led to that conclusion because a Tribunal of three consisting of Mr. Sen, Mr. Mazumdar and Mr. Chandrasekhara Aiyar is a different tribunal from one consisting of two, viz., of Mr. Sen and Mr. Mazumdar only. In this setting, it is next necessary to consider the words of section 8 on which strong reliance is placed on behalf of the respondents. The marginal note of that section is filling of vacancies . The section deals with the Board, the Court and the Tribunal in its clauses. Under sub-section (1), the Legislature clearly contemplates that when the services of a member cease to be available at any time there will arise a vacancy. This sub-section deals with the situation in three stages. The first question is, have the services of a member (and this includes, for the present discussion,. a chairman)ceased to be available ? If so, the vacancy having thus arisen, the next question is, what can be done by the appropriate Government ? If the vacancy is filled up by making the appointment, the final question is, how the proceedings shall go on before the Board, Court or Tribunal so reconstituted ? It was argued on behalf of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ure. It was argued that although no provision is made in section 8 (1) about what is to happen if the Government did not fill up the vacancy, it is implied that in that event the remaining members can continue the work. We are unable to accept that argument. In the first place, as pointed out above, the object of section 8 is to provide in what cases vacancies must be filled up and how the proceedings should continue on the vacancy being filled up. It does not deal at all with the situation arising from the not filling up of the vacancy by the Government. In this connection the provisions of sections 5 (4) and 6 (a) have been already noted. When the legislature wanted to provide that in spite of the temporary absence or permanent vacancy the remaining members should be authorised to proceed with the work they have made express provision to that effect. If in the case of a Board or Court of Inquiry, neither of which is adjudicating any disputes, such a provision was considered necessary to enable the remaining members to act as a body, we think that the absence of such provision in respect of the Tribunal, which adjudicates on the disputes and whose quasi-judicial work is admittedly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inistry from the 23rd of November, 1949, to the 20th of February, 1950, appears to be more a notification for the purpose of the Accountant-General and the Audit departments of the Government than a disclosure of the mind of the Government when the appointment was made on the 23rd of November. When Mr. Sen, as chairman, and Mr. Mazumdar held their first sitting in the absence of Mr. Chandrasekhara Aiyar, an objection was raised about the constitution of the Tribunal. Thereupon Mr. Sen and Mr. Mazumdar conveyed to the Government what had happened at the meeting. The Government was therefore clearly faced with the problem as to what it wanted to do. The reply telegram from the Government asked Mr. Sen and Mr. Mazumdar to go on with the proceedings. It further stated that the Government might fill up the vacancy later on. The question for consideration is, what is the effect of this telegram of the Government ? In the light of the provisions of section 8 that telegram can only mean that the Government had decided not to fill up the vacancy. If a vacancy had occurred they had to make the appointment or state that they will not do so. They cannot defer their decision on the question ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... given, in our opinion, applies with equal force when a tribunal initially constituted of three persons, viz., Mr. Sen, Mr. Mazumdar and Mr. Chandrasekhara Aiyar, is, by the Government decision, as from a certain date, to be a tribunal of Mr. Sen and Mr. Mazumdar only. The word reconstituted is properly used in section 8 because when a new member is introduced in the panel so far performing its duties, it is a reconstitution, but the words of section 8 do not exclude the obligation on the Government to issue a notification under rule 5 when there is not a reconstitution, but a new constitution of the Tribunal. The Government, however, did not give effect to its intention by issuing a fresh notification under section 7. Therefore, when the services of Mr. Chandrasekhara Aiyar ceased to be available and they decided that another independent person was not to be appointed to fill the vacancy, there arose the situation when only two members constituted the Tribunal and for the constitution of such Tribunal no notification under section 7 of the Act was issued. To enable such a Tribunal of two persons to function, under the provisions of the Act, a notification under section 7 of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the parties was essential to enable the remaining members to act, it certainly follows that the objection to their working as a 'tribunal when there is no consent and the absence is not casual, but is due to the services of one of the members having ceased to be available, is fatal. It follows therefore that all awards made by Mr. Sen and Mr. Mazumdar, after the services of Mr. Chandrasekhara Aiyar ceased to be available, were not made by a tribunal duly constituted under section 7 and those awards are therefore void. It was contended that by directing Mr. Chandrasekhara Aiyar to work again as a member of the Banks Tribunal in February, 1950, the Government had filled up the vacancy under section 8. In our opinion this position cannot be supported on the admitted facts. As regards filling up of a vacancy under section 8, we have already noticed that by directing the remaining two members to proceed with the work and by notifying their awards as the awards of the Tribunal the Government must be considered to have intended not to fill up the vacancy. Again, the later notification published in June, 1950, does not even state that Mr. Chandrasekhara Aiyar was appointed a member ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... andrasekhara Aiyar ceased to be available to the Tribunal in November, 1949, and the Government accepted the position that a vacancy had occurred, Mr. Chandrasekhara Aiyar ceased to be a member of the Tribunal of three as constituted under the Government notification of June, 1949. Thereafter Mr. Chandrasekhara Aiyar never became a member of the Tribunal as he was never appointed a member before he signed the award. No notification making such an appointment under section 7 read' with section 8 of the Act has been even suggested to exist. In the circumstances, the position in law was that Mr. Chandrasekhara Aiyar ceased to be a member of the Tribunal of three as originally constituted, that no new Tribunal of two was legally constituted and that, having ceased to be a member of the tribunal of three, Mr. Chandrasekhara Aiyar could not resume duties as a member of the Tribunal of three without a fresh constitution of a Tribunal of three. The result is that all the interim awards purported to be made by Mr. Sen and Mr. Mazurndar as well as the final awards made by the three must all be held to have been made without jurisdiction. It seems to us that the only way in which the Gove ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or fulfilled. No acquiescence or consent can give a jurisdiction to a court of limited jurisdiction which it does not possess. In our opinion, the position here clearly is that the responsibility to work and decide being the joint responsibility of all the three members, if proceedings are conducted and discussions on several general issues took place in the presence of only two, followed by an award made by three, the question goes to the root of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and is not a matter of irregularity in the conduct of those proceedings. The absence of a condition necessary to found the jurisdiction to make the award or give a decision deprives the award or decision of any conclusive effect. The distinction clearly is between the jurisdiction to decide matters and the ambit of the matters to be heard by a Tribunal having jurisdiction to deal with the same. In the second case, the question of acquiescence or irregularity may be considered and overlooked. When however the question is of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to make the award under the circumstances summarized above, no question of acquiescence or consent can affect the decision. It was contended that unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... later on after considerable work is done by the remaining members change its mind and proceed to act on the footing that a vacancy has continued and fill up the same after some months. On the admitted principle that the work of the Tribunal, which is of a quasi-judicial nature, is one of joint responsibility of all its members, section 8 provides exceptions. The Legislature having thus fixed in that section the limits of the exceptions, the limits have to be strictly observed and it is not within the competence either of the Tribunal or the Government to extend the limits of those exceptions. In our opinion, the incidents in respect of the sittings and work of this Banking Tribunal, as mentioned above, do not fall within the limits of the exceptions and therefore the awards must be considered as made without jurisdiction. In our opinion, therefore, the awards made and signed by Messrs. Sen and Mazumdar and by all the three persons are without jurisdiction and the contention of the appellants on this issue must be accepted. FAZL ALI J.- The questions which this Bench is called upon to decide arise upon the following facts. By a Notification dated the 13th June, 1949 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... em in the light of our notions of judicial procedure to be followed in courts of law, will, in my opinion, be found to be without much substance, on close examination, once we realize that the Industrial Tribunal, though it has all the trappings of a court of law, is not such a court and has to follow its own procedure which has to be determined by the provisions of the industrial Disputes Act and the rules framed by the Government thereunder. The determination of the questions raised before us will depend mainly upon the proper construction of section 8 (1)of the Act, which runs as follows :- 8 (1) If the services of the chairman of a Board or of the chairman or other member of a Court or Tribunal cease to be available at any time, the appropriate Government shall, in the case of a chairman, and may in the case of any other member, appoint another independent person to fill the vacancy, and the proceedings shall be continued before the Board, Court or Tribunal so reconstituted . One of the questions to be decided in construing this section is, as to the exact meaning of the words services cease to be available. Ordinarily, the word cease conveys a sense of permanency, and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed an occasion for the Government to exercise the discretion vested in it under section 8 of the Act. At this stage it will be relevant to quote certain correspondence which passed between the chairman of the Tribunal and the Government soon after Mr. Aiyar' left the Tribunal. We find that on the 28th November, 1949, the chairman sent an express telegram to the Labour Ministry stating that in the absence of Mr. Aiyar objections had been raised to the remaining two members of the Tribunal continuing the proceedings and urging the Ministry either to appoint a substitute or to intimate that the Tribunal could proceed with two members during Mr. Aiyar's absence. To this, the Government sent the following reply: Reference your telegram twenty eighth stop Government advised that rule twelve is inconsistent with section eight stop rule twelve being deleted through notification stop Government advised Tribunal can continue proceedings with remaining two members stop no formal order or notification necessary stop Government may fill vacancy later date. These two telegrams indicate that both the chairman of the Tribunal and the Government took the view that in the circumst ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct appears to me to be the same, and I think that it will be entirely foreign to that scheme to suggest that the proceedings of the Tribunal should remain suspended indefinitely. The principle that the proceedings may continue in spite of there being a vacancy in number, is expressly laid down in sections 5 and 6 of the Act which govern Boards of Conciliation and Courts of Enquiry, and is in my opinion recognized by necessary implication in section 8 with reference to proceedings before an Industrial Tribunal. It was strenuously argued before us that if the intention of the Legislature had been that the proceedings before the Tribunal should continue in spite of a vacancy, an express provision would have been made in section 8 in the same terms as it has been made in sections 5 and 6. This argument however will not bear close examination. Sections 5 and 6 have been reproduced from the Trade Disputes Act, 1929, without any verbal change whatsoever, and it is quite understandable that a provision dealing with the subject of a prescribed quorum should expressly state what would be the effect of the absence of the chairman or a member when the quorum is complete. Section 8, on the othe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red very large powers on the Government, and the entire constitution of the Tribunal as well as the appointment of its members have been left to its discretion. Section 7 (2) provides that the Tribunal shall consist of such number of members as the appropriate Government thinks fit. Again, section 8 (1) provides that the Government may or may not appoint a member to fill a vacancy. Under section 9, no order of the appropriate Government appointing any person as a member of a Tribunal shall be called in question in any manner. Under section 38, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of the Act, the Government may make rules, and, as far as I can see, there is nothing to prevent the Government from making a rule fixing the minimum strength of the Tribunal for hearing any of the matters before it. Thus, in a way, the Government is empowered to constitute as well as reconstitute the Tribunal, and though it is not expected to use the power arbitrarily, or unfairly the power is there. Therefore looking at the substance of the matter, as opposed to mere technicalities and legal refinements, it appears to me to be a sufficient answer to the question posed on behalf of the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ceived notions of strict judicial procedure followed in a regular court of law. A perusal of section 8 (2) will show that the Act does not contemplate a ale novo hearing in those cases where a new member is appointed by the Government in the place of a member whose services had ceased to be available. The new member may join at any stage of the proceedings, and no party will be heard to say that a member who has not taken part in the earlier proceedings is able to influence the views of those who had participated in them. How then can such an objection be raised in the case of Mr. Aiyar, who was familiar with the proceedings and had taken part in them in the earlier stages. When we therefore examine the facts closely, we find that in substance nothing has happened in this case which could not have legitimately happened under section 8 of the Act. Even if we assume that it was necessary for the Government to make an appointment under sub-section (1) of section 8, the requirements of the provision appear to me to have been substantially fulfilled in this case, because Mr. Aiyar could not have joined the Tribunal without giving notice to the Government and without obtaining its ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s ex post facto notification cannot legalize an illegality which had already been committed. I do not however appreciate this argument. In the first place, there was no illegality committed; secondly, the section does not require any notification; and thirdly, it is not correct to say that the Notification was issued ex post facto, as the proceedings had not terminated but were still going on. The Government can take its own time for issuing a Notification, and I am unable to hold that the Government did not act bona fide in making the Notification to which I have referred. As I have already stated, the fact that Mr. Aiyar joined the Tribunal with the concurrence of the Government and the Government wanted him to continue to participate in the work of the Tribunal and paid him his salary on that basis, is sufficient compliance with the requirements of the Act. How the absence of a formal order or delay in the Notification can have such a far-reaching effect on the proceedings before the Tribunal as to make the whole award void as having been made without jurisdiction, is a matter which I find considerable difficulty in appreciating. It seems to me that the objections raised on beha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ogether with the names of persons constituting them, refers to a Notification which the Government has to make when a Board, Court or Tribunal is initially constituted under the Act. This was done in this case, as will appear from the award itself. The rule has no reference to the appointments made under section 8 of the Act to fill vacancies. I take it that the Government will, as a matter of practice, issue a notification in regard to the appointments made under section 8, but the notification will not be under rule 5, and section 8 itself does not expressly provide for issuing any notification. Nor is a notification necessary under section8 in cases where the Government decides not to fill a vacancy. The mere fact that the word 'reconstituted' occurs in section 8, is not in my opinion enough to attract rule 5. Rule 12 which was in force till the 5th December, 1950, dealt with a casual vacancy, and provided that on the occurrence of such a vacancy, the Tribunal may act with the consent of the parties. This rule had nothing to do with the vacancy caused by the services of a chairman or a member ceasing to be available, which is dealt with in section 8. At the first sight, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct matter of controversy in these appeals as succinctly as possible in a separate judgment. The only point that has been canvassed before us at this stage of the hearing of the appeals relates to the question of jurisdiction, and the substantial ground upon which the legality of the awards has been assailed by the learned Counsel appearing for the several Banks is that the awards were not made by a Tribunal properly constituted and competent to adjudicate upon industrial disputes under the terms of the Industrial Disputes Act. To appreciate the arguments that have been raised by the respective parties on this point, it would be necessary to state a few facts. By a notification dated the 13th of June, 1949, the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred upon it by section 7 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, constituted an Industrial Tribunal consisting of three members to wit: (1) Mr. K.C. Sen, (who was appointed chairman of the Tribunal), (2) Mr. S.P. Verma and (3) Mr.J.N. Mazumdar. By a further Notification dated August 24, 1949, Mr. N. Chandrasekhara Aiyar was appointed a member of the Tribunal in place of Mr. S.P. Verma whose services ceased to be available an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... August 12, 1950. The point that has been pressed for our consideration on behalf of the appellants Banks is that on the services of Mr. Aiyar having ceased to be available by reason of his being appointed a member of the Indo-Pakistan Boundary Tribunal, the remaining two members could not, in law, constitute an Industrial Tribunal without its being reconstituted as such in, the manner contemplated by the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. The proceedings after the 23rd of November, 1949, became, therefore, void and inoperative and the subsequent rejoining of the Tribunal by Mr. Aiyar was of no avail, as a vacancy having once occurred, a fresh appointment of a member and a fresh constitution of the Tribunal were imperative in law. We have been asked to declare the award made on 31st of July, 1950, as well as the earlier awards void and inoperative on these grounds. These contentions have been sought to be repelled on behalf of the respondents employees as well as by the learned Attorney-General who appeared for the Central Government as intervener, on a variety of grounds and though the grounds are not quite uniform or consistent, they have all been invoked in support ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n appointed. Section 6 of the Act relates to Courts of Enquiry and such court may consist of one independent person or such number of independent persons as the appropriate Government may think fit. Where a Court of Enquiry consists of two or more members, one of them has got to be appointed as a chairman. The Court like the Board of Conciliation can function in the absence of the chairman or any of its members or in the case of any vacancy in its number, provided it has the prescribed quorum; but it cannot function if the appropriate Government notifies it that the services of the chairman have ceased to be available, so long as a new chairman is not appointed. There is no provision in section 6 relating to notification by Government in case the services of a member of a Court cease to be available as there is in the case of a member of the Conciliation Board under section 5. Section 7 deals with Industrial Tribunals. Sub-section (1) lays down that the appropriate Government may constitute one or more Industrial Tribunals for the adjudication of industrial disputes in accordance with the provisions of this Act. Sub-section (2) provides that a Tribunal shall consist of such n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rd so reconstituted. The section purports to provide for filling up vacancies. Sub-section (2) is not material for our present purpose. Taking sub-sections (1) and (3) together we find that if the services of the chairman of a Board, a Court or a Tribunal cease to be available at any time, it is incumbent upon the appropriate Government in each case to fill the vacancy by the appointment of another independent person as chairman and the proceedings shall be continued before the authorities so reconstituted and they would not have to be commenced de novo. In case the services of a member of either a Court or a Tribunal cease to be available, it is discretionary with the appropriate Government to fill the vacancy or not as it chooses. If it chooses to appoint a new member in place of the old, the same provision will apply as in the case of appointment of a new chairman. The section does not say, at least in express terms, as to what would happen if the Government does not think it proper to appoint a new member. So far as a Board of Conciliation is concerned, a different provision is made even when the services of a member cease to be available. In such a case, re-appointment has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the number is subsequently altered. So far as an Industrial Tribunal is concerned, section 8 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act comes into operation when the services of the chairman of the Tribunal or of any member thereof cease to be available at any time. This nonavailability of services may be permanent or temporary and may be occasioned by any cause or circumstance. When the services of a member cease to be available, the appropriate Government has got to make up its mind whether it would fill the vacancy or not; and in case it chooses to appoint a new member, the Tribunal must be deemed to be reconstituted within the meaning of section 8, the primary object of which is to provide that the proceedings shall be continued before such reconstituted Tribunal from the stage at which they were left and they would not have to be started afresh. Thus it follows from the language of section 8 that the reconstitution spoken of or contemplated by the section is reconstitution by reason of the appointment of a new member in place of the old. There is no question so far as section 8 is concerned of reconstitution of the Tribunal when the Government chooses not to fill the vacancy. The p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ision contained in sub-section (2) of section 7. As section 8 does not lay down that in case the services of a member of the Tribunal cease to be available and the Government does not choose to make a new appointment in his place, the remaining members should continue to form the Tribunal, the constitution or 'reconstitution of the remaining members as a Tribunal should, in my opinion, be made only under section 7 of the Act. I am not impressed by the argument of Mr. De that a Tribunal is to be conceived of as an entity different from the members of which it is composed and whatever changes might occur in the composition of the Tribunal, the identity of the Tribunal remains intact. A distinction undoubtedly exists between the court and the judge who presides over it but if the constitution of the court requires that it is to be composed of a certain number of judges, obviously a lesser number could not perform the functions of the court. Mr. De also argued that the very object of the Industrial Disputes Act is to ensure a speedy and quick determination of industrial disputes and section 15 of the Act expressly lays down that the Tribunal shall hold its proceedings expeditiou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s with the consent of both parties. On the other hand, the provision in the rule certainly goes against the broad contention that the respondents wanted to raise upon the language of section 8. In my opinion, as there was no notification by the appropriate Government under section 7 of the Industrial Disputes Act constituting the two members a Tribunal under the Act during the absence of Mr. Chandrasekhara Aiyar, the proceedings before these two members were void and inoperative and the award made and signed by them only during this period must be held to be void. I do not think however that it should be held that the Tribunal was not a properly constituted authority or lacked jurisdiction to exercise its function when Mr. Aiyar resumed his duties on 20th of February, 1950. As I have said already, what is necessary for due constitution of an Industrial Tribunal is a notification or order by the appropriate Government under section 7 of the Industrial Disputes Act and the number and names of the members as given in the notification form an essential or integral part of the Tribunal thus constituted. If the services of one of the members cease to be available at any time as is con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... if the vacancy was actually filled up; but, as has happened in the present case, if the vacancy is not filled up but is allowed to remain, it would automatically come to an end as soon as the member whose absence caused the vacancy comes back and rejoins the office. It may be desirable in the interests of the public to issue a notice or make some announcement in regard to the resumption of duties by the absent member, but in my opinion no reconstitution of the Tribunal with the self same members is called for or necessary under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is pointed out that cases may be conceived of where the non-availability of the services of a member is due to death, lunacy or some such circumstance; but in such cases there could be no question of the man's coming back and joining his office, and as I have said already under section 16 of the Industrial Disputes Act no award would be valid unless all the members whose names appeared in the notification signed it. This would be impossible in the case of death, lunacy or some other disablement of that character. It will be seen that in the Government Notification No. LR 60 (47) dated 20th March, 1950, it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
