Patna High Court
Hindustan General Electrical ... vs The State Of Bihar And Ors. on 10 March, 1964
Equivalent citations: AIR1964PAT381
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Chief Justice
ORDER
1. In this case the petitioner has obtained a rule from the High Court for calling upon the respondents to show cause why the notification dated the nth January, 1962 issued by respondent No. 1 constituting a Court of enquiry in exercise of its powers under Section 6 read with Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act should not be quashed by grant of a writ in the nature of certiorari tinder Article 226 of the Constitution. Cause has been shown by learned Counsel on behalf of respondent No. 3, Sri Vishwanath Prasad, General Secretary, Karampura Workers Union, but there is no appearance on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 to whom notice of the rule was ordered to be given.
2. The notification of the State Government dated the 11th, January, 1962, which is annexure B to the writ application, reads as follows:
"No. III/D1-6045/61 L and E-231. Whereas the Governor of Bihar is of opinion that an industrial dispute exists between the managment of the Hindustan General Electrical Corporation Ltd. P. O. Karampura, Dhanbad and their workmen represented by Karampura Workers Union, P. O. Karampura, Dhanbad, as a result of dismissal of 493 workmen.
And whereas, the Governor of Bihar is also of opinion that the matters specified in Annexure A is connected with the dispute;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 6 read with Clause (b) of subsection (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (XIV of 1947), the Governor of Bihar is pleased to constitute a Court of Inquiry with Sri H.K. Choudhary, Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bihar, as its sole member for inquiring into the matters specfied in Annexure A. Annexure A (1) What factors have contributed to the gradual deterioration of Labour-management relations at the Hindustan General Electrical Corporation Ltd. resulting in mass dismissal of workmen?
(2) Has the unit, as a result of the deterioration, been affected to such an extent as to necessitate its closure eventually?
(3) What measures should he adopted to restore normal relations between the workmen and the management?
By order of the Governor of Bihar Sd. G.S. Grewal Under Secretary to Government.
11-1-1962."
3. On behalf of the petitioner the argument was put forward that the reference by the State Government under Section 10 (1) (b) of the Act to the Court of Inquiry is ultra vires and illegal since there is already a reference by the State Government of the Industrial dispute between the parties under Section 10 (1) (c) of the Act by its notification dated the 27th October, 1961. The reference made by the State Government on the 27th October, 1961, is annexure A to the writ application in M. J. C. No. 949 of 1962 and is to the following effect:
"No. III/D-1/6o45/611E-8084. Whereas the Governor of Bihar is of opinion that an industrial dispute exists or is apprehended between the management of Hindustan General Electrical Corporation Ltd., P. O. Karampura, Dhanbad and their workmen represented by Karampura Workers Union, P. O. Karampura, Dhanbad, regarding the matters specified in Annexure 'A' annexed hereto:
Now therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (XIV of 1947), the Governor of Bihar is pleased to refer the said dispute to the Labour Court, Ranchi constituted in the State Government Notification No. III/D 1-12047/ 571-13149 dated 26th July.
ANNEXURE-A Whether the dismissal / discharge of the workmen mentioned below is justified? If not whether these workmen should be reinstated and/or compensated ?
List of dismissed workmen H. G. E. C., Karampura, As given by the Karampura workers Union.
493 workers.
Note: Is ke atirikt 10 ya 15 members or bhi bhar Sakte hain.
By order of the Governor of Bihar, Sd/- G. S. Grewal, Under Secretary to Government.
XX XX XX The Presiding Officer is requested to send to the Government of Bihar in the Labour Department 3 signed copies of his award as soon as possible and simultaneously send a copy of it to the Asstt. Commissioner of Labour, Jamshedpur, Sd. G.S. Grewal Deputy Secretary to Govt.
27-10-61"
4. The contention of learned Counsel on behalf of the petitioner is that the procedure of constituting a Court of Inquiry and referring any matter connected with or relevant to the industrial dispute to such court of Inquiry under Section 10 (1) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act cannot be adopted in a case where the State Government has referred the industrial dispute itself to a Labour Court or to a Tribunal for adjudication under Section 10 (1) (c) or under Section 10 (1) (d) of the Act. It is necessary to reproduce at this stage Section 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act the intrepretation of which is the subject matter of keen controversy, between the parties:
"10 (1) Where the appropriate Government is of opinion that any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended, it may at any time by order in writing
(a) refer the dispute to a Board for promoting a settlement thereof: or
(b) refer any matter appearing to be connected with or relevant to the dispute to a Court for inquiry; or
(c) refer the dispute or any matter appearing to the connected with, or relevant to, the dispute, if it relates to any matter specified in the Second Schedule, to a Labour Court for adjudication; or
(d) refer the dispute or any matter appearing to be connected with, or relevant to, the dispute, whether it relates to any matter specified in the Second schedule or the Third schedule to a Tribunal for adjudication:
Provided that where the dispute relates to any matter specified in the Third Schedule and is not likely to affect more than one hundred workmen, the appropriate Government may, if it so thinks fit, make the reference to a Labour Court under Clause (c).
Provided further that where the dispute relates to a public utility service and a notice under Section 22 has been given, the appropriate Government shall, unless it considers that the notice has been frivolously or vexatiously given or that it would be inexpedient so to do, make a reference under this sub-section notwithstanding that any other proceedings under this Act in respect of the dispute may have commenced."
5. On behalf of the petitioner it was submitted that it is not open to the State Government to dissect the matters connected with industrial dispute and to take action under Section 10(1)(c) of the Act by referring the industrial dispute to a Labour Court and at the same time take action under Section 10(1)(b) of the Act and refer the matters connected with the same industrial dispute to the Court of Inquiry. In our opinion, the argument put forward on behalf of the petitioner is well founded and must be accepted as correct. As a matter of construction, it is manifest that the powers of reference given to the State Government under Clauses (a) (b) and (c) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act are in the alternative and not cumulative in character. We are, therefore of opinion that the State Government cannot at one and the same time refer an industrial dispute for adjudication to a Labour Court under Section 10(1)(c) of the Act and at the same time refer any matter connected with it or relevant to the identical industrial dispute to a Court of Inquiry under Section 10(1)(b) of the. Act. The view that we have expressed as to the interpretation of Section 10(1)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act is borne out by the decision of the Supreme Court in Neimla Textile Finishing Mills Ltd. v. The 2nd Punjab Tribunal, (S) AIR 1957 SC 329. At p. 334 of the report, Bhagwati, J. has analysed the whole scheme of the Industrial Disputes Act thus:
"It follows from this survey of the relevant, provisions of the Act that the different authorities which are constituted under the Act are set up with different ends in view and are invested with powers and duties necessary for the achievement of the purposes for which they are set up. The appropriate Government is inyested with a discretion to choose one or the other of the authorities for the purpose of investigation and, settlement of industrial disputes and whether, it sets up one authority or the other for the achievement of the desired ends depends upon its appraisement of the situation as it obtains in a particular industry or establishment. The Works Committees are set up with the object of avoiding such a clash of interest or material differences of opinion as would otherwise lead to industrial disputes. If the measures adopted by the Works Committees do not achieve the end in view and Industrial disputes arise or are apprehended to arise between the employers and workmen. Conciliation Officers may be appointed by the appropriate Government charged with the duty of mediating in and promoting settlement of industrial disputes. If the Conciliation Officers succeed in bringing about a settlement between the employers and the workmen, such settlements are to be signed by the parties to the disputes; but if in spite of the endeavours of the Conciliation Officers properly directed in that behalf no settlement is arrived at between the parties, the Conciliation Officers are to send a full report in the manner indicated above so that the appropriate Government may have before it complete materials in order to enable it to come to a conclusion whether there is a case for reference to a Board or Tribunal as the case may be. If the appropriate Government is satisfied that there is a case for reference to a Board of Conciliation, it may constitute such Board for promoting the settlement of the industrial dispute consisting of a Chairman and 2 or 4 other members as it thinks fit, charged with the duty of doing all such things as it thinks fit for the purpose of inducing the parties to come to a fair and amicable settlement of the dispute. If the Board succeeds in arriving at a settlement a report thereof together with a memorandum of the settlement will be sent by it to the appropriate Government but if no such settlement is arrived at the Board will send to the appropriate Government a full report in the manner indicated above including its recommendations for the determination of the dispute. It may be noted that a reference to the Board of Conciliation is but a preliminary step for the settlement of the industrial dispute and the report made by it in the event of a failure to bring about such settlement will furnish materials to the appropriate Government to make up its mind whether it will refer the dispute for adjudication to an Industrial Tribunal. Before, however any such reference is made by the appropriate Government it may set up a Court of Enquiry for the purpose of enquiring into any matter appearing to be connected with or relevant to an industrial dispute. The Court of Enquiry will enquire into those matters and report thereon to the appropriate Government within six months from the commencement of the enquiry. That report will furnish materials to the appropriate Government for finally determining whether the industrial dispute shall be referred by it for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal. It may be that the report of the Court of Enquiry discloses circumstances under which the appropriate Government considers that it is not necessary to refer the industrial dispute, for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal. In that event the matter will end there and the appropriate Government may await further developments before referring the industrial dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal. If, on the other hand, the materials embodied in the report of the Court of Enquiry disclose circumstances which make it necessary for the appropriate Government to refer the industrial dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, the appropriate Government will constitute an Industrial Tribunal for adjudication of the industrial dispute in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The Industrial Tribunal would then adjudicate upon such dispute and submit its award to the appropriate Government".
It is manifest that the object of making a reference under Section 10(1)(b) of the Act is to enable the appropriate Government to obtain materials for finally determining whether the industrial dispute should be referred by it for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal. As we have already indicated, the State Government has no power to make a reference under Section 10(1)(b) and also an other reference under Section 10(1)(c) with regard to the same industrial dispute. In a case, therefore, where the appropriate Government has made a reference of the industrial dispute for adjudication under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, it is not competent to the appropriate Government to make a reference of certain matters connected with the same industrial dispute to a Court of Inquiry under Section 10(1)(b) of the Act.
6. For those reasons we hold that the notification of the State Government No. III/D16045/61 L and E-231 dated the 11th, January, 1962 constituting a Court of Inquiry under Section 10(1)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act is illegal and ultra vires and a writ in the nature of certiorari should be, issued under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing that notification. We accordingly allow this application, but there will be no order as to costs.