Delhi High Court
Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Mahavir And Anr. on 7 March, 2002
Author: Sanjay Kishan Kaul
Bench: Sanjay Kishan Kaul
JUDGMENT Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.
1. An award was passed on 19.4.1998 by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court. After more than two years the petitioner authority woke up to challenge this award.
2. In the petition it is contended that there was no authority to make the reference as was made by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi and thus the impugned award is itself a nullity. This plea has been so raised for the first time as undoubtedly the petition suffers from culpable delays and laches and on issue of merits otherwise the petitioner would not have been entitled to any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that it is only vide the letter dated 31.7.1998 that the powers have been delegated by the Central Government under the Industrial Disputes Act in respect of 129 public sector enterprises including the respondent corporation and the copy of the notification has been enclosed with the petition. It is contended that this being a jurisdictional issue can be raised at any stage even though it was not raised before the Labour Court.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, contends that a bare reading of the provisions of rule 2(f) of the Industrial Disputes(Central) Rules 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) would show that in relation to the Union Territories wherever the reference is made to the Central Government as the appropriate Government the same shall be treated as reference to the Administrator of the Union Territory.
5. It is thus contended that the Lt.Governor would be the appropriate authority being the Administrator of Union Territory of Delhi. The said rule is as under: - "2. Interpretation. - (f) In relation to an industrial dispute in a Union territory, for which the appropriate Government is the Central Government, reference to the Central Government or the Government of India shall be construed as a reference to the Administrator of the territory, and reference to the Chief Labour Commissioner(Central), Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and the Assistant Labour Commissioner(Central) shall be construed as reference to the appropriate authority, appointed in that behalf by the Administrator of the territory." The learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the judgment of learned Single Judge of this court in NBCC Ltd. vs. M K Jain & Ors. 1981 LAB. I.C. 62 In para 6 and 8 of the judgment the learned Judge observed as under:- "The Award was sought to be voided, inter alia, on the ground that by virtue of the constitution and composition of the Corporation, Central Government was the only authority competent to make a reference of the dispute to the industrial court and that the reference by the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi was, therefore, in excess of powers.
6. "Even otherwise no exception could be taken to the order of reference, even if it be assumed that Central Government was the appropriate Government, inasmuch as the distinction between the Central and the State Governments in relation to the Union Territory in our constitutional famework is rendered illusory. Union Territory is administered by the President of India under Art.239 of the Constitution of India, acting to such extent as he thinks fit, through the Administrator, to be appointed by him. In the case of a Union Territory, there is an amalgamation of the constitutional classification of legislative and executive powers between the Centre and the States. According to Section 3(8) of the General Clauses Act, "Central Government" in relation to the administration of a Union Territory means the Administrator acting within the scope of authority given to him under Article 239 of the Constitution of India and in terms of Section 3(60) of the General Clauses Act, "State Government", as respects anything done or to be done in a Union Territory, means the Central Government.
7. In the case of a Union Territory, therefore, the Central and State Governments merge and it is immaterial whether an order of reference is made by one or the other. This contention must, therefore, fail." It is thus apparent from the reading of the aforesaid judgment that the learned Single Judge has held that there can be no exception taken to an order of reference even if it is assumed that the Central Government was the appropriate Government. The the ratio of the said judgment would squarely cover the present case.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, has referred to the judgment of Supreme Court in Goa Sampling Employees' Association vs. General Superintendance Co. of India Pvt. Ltd. & ors Learned counsel referred to para 17 of the said judgment where the Supreme Court observed as under:- "The position, the power, the duties and functions of the Administrator in relation to the President have been overlooked. On a conspectus of the relevant provisions of the Constitution and the 1963 Act, it clearly transpires that the concept of State Government is foreign to the administration of Union Territory and Article 239 provides that every Union Territory is to be administered by the President. The President may act through an administrator appointed by him. Administrator is thus the delegate of the President. His position is wholly different from that of a Governor of a State. Administrator can differ with his Minister and he must then obtain the orders of the President meaning thereby of the Central Government.
9. Therefore, at any rate the administrator of Union Territory does not qualify for the description of a State Government.
10. Therefore, the Central Government is the 'appropriate Government'.
11. The observation in the aforesaid judgment makes it clear that the same has been made in respect of the distinction between the powers of the Administrator in the Union Territory of Delhi to that of a Governor in a State and it has been held that the Administrator would not qualify for description as a State Government.
12. I fail to appreciate as to how this judgment would come to the aid of the petitioner in view of the rule 2(f) of the Rules and the judgment in NBCC's case(supra). The effect of the rule has not been contended before the Supreme Court in Goa Sampling Employees' case(supra). Both the rules and the judgment of the learned Single Judge have considered the issue of making a reference and there is specific provision in the rules itself as to which is the authority is to make reference in case of Union Territory. The rules have been framed in accordance with law and there is no challenge to the rules. The reference thus cannot be faulted.
13. In view of the aforesaid, I find no merit in the writ petition which suffers from culpable delays and laches and the issue of jurisdiction has been raised for the first time to some how defeat the effect of the Award.
14. Writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.3,000/-.