Allahabad High Court
Steel Authority Of India vs State Of U.P. & Ors. on 21 February, 2011
Author: Arun Tandon
Bench: Arun Tandon
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?AFR Court No. - 26 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 31495 of 2010 Petitioner :- Steel Authority Of India Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Ors. Petitioner Counsel :- Dhananjay Awasthi Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,S.N. Dubey Hon'ble Arun Tandon,J.
Petitioner is permitted to implead Union of India through Ministry of Labour, New Delhi as respondent no. 5, during the course of the day.
It is not necessary to issue notice to respondent no. 5, in view of the order proposed to be passed today.
This writ petition, by Steel Authority of India Ltd. (SAIL) through its Branch Manager, Kanpur, is directed against an Award of the Labour Court, U.P. Kanpur Nagar passed in Adjudication Case No. 105 of 2006 dated 16.02.2010. Under the impugned Award, the reference has been answered in favour of the workmen and against the petitioner.
The Award is challenged before this Court on various ground. Suffice is to refer to the basic issue raised in the present petition namely that the State Government was not the competent authority to make the reference in respect of a dispute between a Central Government Undertaking like SAIL and correspondingly the Labour Court U.P., Kanpur could not have adjudicated upon the said dispute. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that on the relevant date the Central Government was the appropriate Government and the dispute could be referred to a Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal established under Section 7/7-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (herein after referred to as the 'Act, 1947').
Counsel for the respondent workmen in reply contends that under notification dated 03.07.1998, the Central Government, in exercise of powers under Section 39 of the Act, 1947, had delegated its powers upon the State Government qua the Central Public Sector Undertakings as detailed in the notification including 'SAIL' (Reference Serial No. 119). He, therefore, submits that in the facts of the case the reference made by the State Government was valid. He also refers to an order of the Assistant Labour Commission (Central) Kanpur dated 05.03.1992 wherein the workmen of the SAIL were informed to approach the State Government for a reference being made in respect of the same dispute. He, therefore, submits that in the facts of the case, not only the reference was competent, the Labour Court, U.P., had the jurisdiction to decide the dispute.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present writ petition.
In order to appreciate the controversy raised between the parties, it would be worthwhile to reproduce the definition of Appropriate Government as contained in Section 2(a) as well as Section 2(kkb), Section 2(r) and Section 7 of the Act, 1947 which read as follows :
?2(a) 'appropriate Government' means --
(i) in relation to any industrial dispute concerning any industry carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government, or by a railway company or concerning any such controlled industry as may be specified in this behalf by the Central Government or in relation to an industrial dispute concerning [a Dock Labour Board established under section 5-A of the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1948 (9 of 1948) or [the Industrial Finance Corporation of India Limited formed and registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) or the Employees' State Insurance Corporation established under section 3 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), or the Board of Trustees constituted under section 3A of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948), or the Central Board of Trustees and the State Boards of Trustees constituted under section 5A and section 5B, respectively of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952) or the Life Insurance Corporation of India established under section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956), or [the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956)], or the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of 1961), or the Central Warehousing Corporation established under section 3 of the Warehousing Corporation Act, 1962 (58 of 1962), or the Unit Trust of India established under section 3 of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963), or the Food Corporation of India established for two or more contiguous States under section 16, of the Food Corporations Act, 1964 (37 of 1964), or [the Airports Authority of India constituted under section 3 of the Airports Authority of India Act, 1944 (55 of 1944)], or a Regional Rural Bank established under section 3 of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 (21 of 1976), or the Export Credit and Guarantee Corporation Limited or the Industrial Reconstruction Bank of India Limited], [the National Housing Bank established under section 3 of the National Housing Bank Act, 1987 (53 of 1987)], or [an air transport service, or a banking or an insurance company,] a mine, an oil field,] [a Cantonment Board], or a major port, the Central Government.
2(kkb) 'Labour Court' means a Labour Court constituted under section 7.
2(r) 'Tribunal' means an Industrial Tribunal constituted under section 7-A and includes an Industrial Tribunal constituted before the 10th day of March, 1957, under this Act.
7. Labour Courts.-- (1) The appropriate Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute one or more Labour Courts for the adjudication of industrial disputes relating to any matter specified in the Second Schedule and for performing such other functions as may be assigned to them under this Act.
(2) A Labour Court shall consist of one person only to be appointed by the appropriate Government.?
It will be seen that so far as SAIL is concerned, it answers the description of an Industry under the authority of the Central Government. The aforesaid aspect of the matter is further established from the notification dated 03.07.1998 (referred to above) issued by the Central Government under Section 39 of the Act,1947 which contains the list of Central Public Sector Undertakings and includes the name of SAIL at Item No. 119.
Counsel for the respondent workmen could not refer to any relevant fact for disputing the said contention of the petitioner. It is, therefore, held that so far as the SAIL is concerned, the appropriate government under the Act, 1947 is the Central Government.
Reference of disputes to the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal is under Section 10(c) of the Act, 1947. The Section provides that a dispute or any matter appearing to be connected with, or relevant to, the dispute, covered by matters specified in Second Schedule, the reference shall be referred to the Labour Court for adjudication. Section 10(d) of the Act, 1947 provides that a dispute or any matter appearing to be connected with, or relevant to any matter specified in the Second Scheduled or the Third Schedule shall be referred to a Tribunal for adjudication.
From the aforesaid it is apparently clear that so far as the disputes qua matters covered by Second Schedule are concerned, it can either be referred to the Labour Court or to the Industrial Tribunal. Dispute pertaining to matters covered by Third Schedule have to be referred to the Industrial Tribunal only. Labour Court has been defined under Section 2 (kkb) to be a Court constituted under Section 7 of the Act, 1947. Section 7 provides that appropriate Government may, by notification in the official gazette, constitute one or more Labour Courts for adjudication of the industrial disputes relating to any matter specified in the Second Schedule and for performing such other functions as may be assigned to them under the Act.
So far as the Industrial Tribunal is concerned, the same has been defined under Section 2(r) and means an Industrial Tribunal constituted under Section 7-A of the Act, 1947.
It is not in dispute that the Central Government has constituted Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court in exercise of powers under the Act, 1947.
This Court may record that a dispute pertaining to discharge/removal of workmen including reinstatement or grant of relief to the workmen of a Central Government Undertaking who had wrongly been dismissed is covered by Section 4 of the Act,1947. What logically follows is that for such a dispute, the appropriate government to refer the matter to the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal in exercise of powers under Section 10(c) would be the Central Government.
It is admitted on record that the reference in the facts of the case was made by the State Government to the Labour Court under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on 06.02.1998 which was registered as Adjudication Case No. 12 of 1998 and was transferred to the Labour Court U.P. at Kanpur-III on 24.05.2006 and allotted new registration no. as Adjudication Case No. 105 of 2006.
It is held that on the date the reference was made it was the Central Government which had the competence to make the reference under Section 10.
The notification relied upon by the counsel for the workmen dated 03.07.1998 is prospective in nature and will not infuse life in a dead reference which was made by the State Government on a date it was not competent to do so.
It has also been brought to the notice of the Court that the notification dated 03.07.1998 has since been withdrawn and as on date it is the Central Government which can refer the disputes in respect of Public Sector Undertakings are concerned.
Since the reference itself was bad, any decision thereon would fall automatically for want of authority.
Another aspect of the matter needs examination. On the issuance of the notification dated 03.07.1998 whereunder the Central Government in exercise of powers under Section 39 delegated its power to the State Government, all the powers exercisable under the Act, 1947 in relation to all Central Public Sector Undertakings could be exercised by the State Government. It would become the authority to make the reference under Section 10(c) but the State Government can make the reference to the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal constituted under the Act,1947 and not to a Labour Court constituted under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Therefore, irrespective of the date of enforcement of the notification dated 03.07.1998, the Labour Court constituted under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 will have no jurisdiction to entertain a reference which arises out of reference under the Act, 1947. Such disputes have necessarily to be refer to the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal constituted under the Act, 1947 only.
For reasons noted herein above, the impugned Award of the Labour Court, U.P. at Kanpur III suffers from want of jurisdiction and, therefore, cannot be legally sustained. The reference as well as the Award are hereby quashed. Writ petition is allowed.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the workmen are permitted to approach the Central Government along with a certified copy of this order within four weeks from today for fresh reference being made and the Central Government is requested to take an appropriate decision in the matter within six weeks thereafter.
Dated : 21.02.2011 VR/31495/10