UNION COMMERIAL BANK LIMITED Vs. THEIR WORKMEN
LAWS(SC)-1951-3-12
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on March 09,1951

UNION COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED Appellant
VERSUS
IR WORKMEN Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

MOHAMMAD SALEEM KRODHI VS. U.P. SUNNI CENTRAL BOARD OF WAQF, LUCKNOW [LAWS(ALL)-2017-5-232] [REFERRED TO]
M.D. PAKSHIMANCHAL VIDUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD. VS. OMBUDSMAN, 3RD FLOOR, NEEDA BUILDING, VIBHUTI KHAND, GOMTI NAGAR, LUCKNOW [LAWS(ALL)-2012-7-334] [REFERRED TO]
SHEELA DEVI & ORS VS. HARBHAJAN LAL [LAWS(HPH)-2016-7-152] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF TELANGANA, REP BY ITS PRL SECRETARY, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT (HIGHER EDUCATION), SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD AND ANOTHER VS. VASAVI ACADEMY OF EDUCATION [LAWS(APH)-2018-8-21] [REFERRED TO]
DEVAJIT CHALIHA VS. HARENDRA NATH BARUAH AND ORS. [LAWS(GAU)-1971-4-3] [REFERRED TO]
S KUMARASWAMY REDDIAR VS. S NOORDEEN [LAWS(KER)-1960-2-51] [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL SHAKOOR AND VS. CUSTODIAN OF EVACUEE PROPERTY IN BANGALORE [LAWS(KAR)-1954-2-5] [REFERRED TO]
TARABAI LALJI MRS VS. COLLECTOR JAMNAGAR [LAWS(GJH)-1979-3-2] [REFERRED]
INDIAN BANK VS. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL [LAWS(MAD)-1963-1-19] [REFERRED TO]
SHRIKRISHNA VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-1974-4-6] [REFERRED TO]
ROLAND EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST VS. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME [LAWS(ORI)-2008-9-52] [REFERRED TO]
SURAPANENI VENKATA KUSHALA RAO VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-1978-1-2] [REFERRED TO]
BHARAT BIJLEE LIMITED AND ORS. VS. COMMISSIONER OF TRADE & TAXES AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2016-2-273] [REFERRED TO]
WING COMMANDER SHYAM NAITHANI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2022-3-107] [REFERRED TO]
ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD VS. EASTERN INDIA POWERTECH LTD [LAWS(GAU)-2021-6-7] [REFERRED TO]
SUBHASH G NARUEKAR VS. STATE OF GOA [LAWS(BOM)-2005-5-28] [REFERRED TO]
GOPIKISHAN AGARWAL VS. DISTRICT JUDGE, BHANDARA [LAWS(BOM)-1964-10-9] [REFERRED TO]
V N NADGIR VS. UNION OF INDIA BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS; NEW DELHI [LAWS(KAR)-1969-7-22] [REFERRED]
N B K REDDY VS. KARNATAK UNIVERSITY [LAWS(KAR)-1972-1-9] [DISTINGUISHED]
MADHAVA RAO VS. D V K SURYA RAO MEMBER OF THE PITHAPURAM CO OPERATIVE [LAWS(MAD)-1953-4-43] [REFERRED TO]
BADRIDASS KANHAIYALAL VS. APPELLATE TRIBUNAL OF STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITYRAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1959-4-15] [REFERRED TO]
JAMUNA PRASAD VS. BISHESHWAR SAH [LAWS(PAT)-1969-4-9] [REFERRED TO]
HAJI TAIYAB ALI VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-1978-1-12] [REFERRED TO]
MADAMBI VS. KUNHUKUTTY AMMA [LAWS(KER)-1974-10-14] [REFERRED TO]
PENIEL CASHEW COMPANY & ORS. VS. AHCOM SARL [LAWS(KER)-2018-6-863] [REFERRED TO]
JAGMITTAR SAIN BHAGAT VS. DIR. HEALTH SERVICES, HARYANA [LAWS(SC)-2013-7-113] [REFERRED TO]
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH VS. DURGA SURYANARAYNA [LAWS(APH)-1969-12-3] [REFERRED TO]
N NAGABHUSHANAM DR VS. M VASUDEVA REDDY [LAWS(APH)-1996-8-78] [RELIED ON]
SRI SUBRATA SARKAR & ANR. VS. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS [LAWS(CAL)-1985-8-34] [REFERRED TO]
SENIOR REGIONAL MANAGER HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED VS. PRESIDING OFFICER INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL I HYDERABAD [LAWS(APH)-2002-3-82] [REFERRED TO]
ESTATE OFFICER AND MANAGER RECOVERIES A P INDUSTRIES INFRASTRUCTURE CORPORATION LIMITED VS. RECOVERY OFFICER DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL BANGLORE [LAWS(APH)-2003-8-22] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGEMENT OF APSRTC VS. WORKMEN OF APSRTC [LAWS(APH)-2008-4-10] [REFERRED TO]
ITC LIMITED VS. CC APPEALS AND CE [LAWS(ALL)-2003-10-157] [REFERRED TO]
BHAGIRATHI VS. STATE [LAWS(ALL)-1954-10-18] [REFERRED TO]
K. GAYATHRI MALLYA VS. THE MANAGER, THE URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED AND ORS. [LAWS(KAR)-2019-12-270] [REFERRED TO]
MANGALDAS N VERMA VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND EXCESS PROFITS TAX [LAWS(BOM)-1953-9-12] [REFERRED TO]
GOA DOCK LABOUR UNION VS. GOVERNMENT OF THE UNION TERRITORY OF GOA, DAMAN AND DIU [LAWS(BOM)-1968-6-14] [REFERRED]
ALI HASAN VS. LT GOVERNOR [LAWS(DLH)-1976-1-4] [REFERRED TO]
BHAGSINGH VS. TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1965-5-8] [REFERRED TO]
KERALA SELF FINANCING DENTAL COLLEGE MANAGEMENTS CONSORTIUM VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2017-11-19] [REFERRED TO]
SUBASH CHAND JAIN VS. COMMISSIONERS OF THE GIRIDIH MUNICIPALITY [LAWS(PAT)-1977-1-14] [REFERRED TO]
PHULENA THAKUR VS. DEVI THAKUR [LAWS(PAT)-1977-5-6] [REFERRED TO]
K THANKACHAN VS. R T A ALLEPPY [LAWS(KER)-1966-9-25] [REFERRED TO]
R K V MOTORS AND TIMBERS P LTD VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-1968-11-12] [REFERRED TO]
ASIF HAMEED STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR RAJEEV MAHAJAN JYOTI KUMARI VS. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR:RAJEEV MAHAJAN:STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR:STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR [LAWS(SC)-1989-5-34] [DISTINGUISHED]
ANITA INTERNATIONAL VS. TUNGABADRA SUGAR WORKS MAZDOOR SANGH AND OTHERS [LAWS(SC)-2016-7-7] [REFERRED TO]
SAURABH GUPTA VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2017-12-122] [REFERRED TO]
SAUMYA COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2018-9-17] [REFERRED TO]
MEERUT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEERUT VS. CIVIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION [LAWS(ALL)-2020-1-236] [REFERRED TO]
CENTRAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE VS. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT [LAWS(CAL)-1998-2-8] [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL HIDGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA VS. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE LAND ACQUISITION AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY [LAWS(CAL)-2008-12-6] [REFERRED TO]
TALLURI SRINIVAS VS. UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS & ANR [LAWS(DLH)-2018-3-211] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH CHANDRA YADAV VS. SECOND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2012-7-365] [REFERRED TO]
BEYOND BASIKS INFOTECH PVT LTD VS. STATE OF ANDHRAPRADESH REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HOME GENERAL-A DEPARTMENT A P SECRETARIAT HYDERABAD [LAWS(APH)-2012-2-54] [REFERRED TO]
SRI. PATNALA VENKATA RAMAKRISHNA AND TWO OTHERS VS. M/S. MIDWEST (INDIA) INDUSTRIES LIMITED REP., BY OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P. HYDERABAD AND TWO OTHERS [LAWS(APH)-2012-8-133] [REFERRED TO]
ABHIMANYU KUMAR DAS VS. GENERAL MANAGER OF HINDUSTAN ZINK LIMITED [LAWS(JHAR)-2020-2-12] [REFERRED TO]
ADAMBHAI RANABHAI VS. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY RAJKOT [LAWS(GJH)-1968-1-6] [REFERRED]
ROURKELA TECHNICAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY AND ORS. VS. COLLECTOR CUM DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND ORS. [LAWS(ORI)-2011-5-39] [REFERRED TO]
VEENA CHANDRA VS. MANAGEMENT OF VISWAMITRA PRESS [LAWS(PAT)-1976-9-5] [REFERRED TO]
M D ARMY WELRARE HOUSING ORGANISATION VS. SUMANGAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(SC)-2003-10-20] [REFERRED TO]
GOPAL SANKAR VS. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CUDDALORE DISTRICT [LAWS(MAD)-2018-6-159] [REFERRED TO]
SENNIMALAI GOUNDER(DIED) VS. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE [LAWS(MAD)-2019-4-151] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGEMENT OF SOCKLATINGA TEA ESTATE VS. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT AND ORS. [LAWS(GAU)-1961-12-12] [REFERRED TO]
JAWHAR SINGH VS. CUSTODIAN GENERAL [LAWS(J&K)-1959-8-3] [REFERRED TO]
BELTEK INDIA LTD VS. COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX [LAWS(ALL)-2019-7-300] [REFERRED TO]
SHANKAR VS. MUKHYA NAGAR ADHIKARI NAGAR NIGAM VARANASI [LAWS(ALL)-1996-9-56] [REFERRED TO]
GANESH PRASAD VS. L D A LUCKNOW [LAWS(ALL)-2011-10-49] [REFERRED TO]
MAHIPAL VERMA VS. RENT CONTROL AND EVICTION OFFICER [LAWS(ALL)-2014-1-183] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. KANDLA PORT TRUST VS. M/S. PEC LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-2014-10-60] [REFERRED TO]
NUMAZAR DORAB MEHTA & ORS. VS. ASSAM COMPANY INDIA LTD. [LAWS(CAL)-2015-10-147] [REFERRED TO]
K A RAMIAH VS. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH HEALTH DEPARTMENT [LAWS(APH)-1958-10-13] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF WEST BENGAL VS. SARKAR AND SARKAR [LAWS(CAL)-2005-9-53] [REFERRED TO]
EDWARD EZRA VS. STATE [LAWS(CAL)-1952-4-5] [REFERRED TO]
BENGAL PROTTERIES LTD VS. M R T P COMMISSION [LAWS(CAL)-1975-10-7] [REFERRED TO]
N GOPALAN VS. CENTRAL ROAD TRAFFIC BOARD TRIVANDRUM [LAWS(KER)-1958-2-3] [REFERRED TO]
FEDDERS LLOYD CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED VS. LT GOVERNOR DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-1969-5-20] [REFERRED]
ATLAS CYCLE INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-1961-1-1] [REFERRED TO]
SRI LAKSHMI VS. MUTHUVEERAN CHETTIAR [LAWS(MAD)-1985-7-22] [REFERRED TO]
ROGER SHASHOUA & OTHERS VS. MUKESH SHARMA & OTHERS [LAWS(SC)-2017-7-1] [REFERRED TO]
LIBORD FINANCE LTD VS. SHIV SAI CONSTRUCTIONS & ORS [LAWS(NCD)-2015-8-136] [REFERRED]
M/S. PENIEL CASHEW COMPANY & ORS. VS. M/S. AHCOM SARL [LAWS(KER)-2018-6-808] [REFERRED TO]
UMA AGGARWAL VS. YADVINDER THAKAR [LAWS(P&H)-1992-7-73] [REFERRED TO]
OM PRAKASH BISHNOI VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2000-8-29] [REFERRED TO]
G RANGA REDDI VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-1965-6-8] [REFERRED TO]
M THAHA VS. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT [LAWS(APH)-1992-4-40] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTA VS. PRESIDING OFFICER INDUSTRIAL COURT [LAWS(BOM)-2006-7-184] [REFERRED TO]
DAYALAL N JOSHI VS. STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY [LAWS(ORI)-1972-7-6] [REFERRED TO]
LLOYDS BANK LIMITED VS. LLOYDS AND INDIAN STAFF ASSOCIATION CALCUTTA BRANCHES [LAWS(SC)-1953-4-14] [FOLLOWED]
KAMA UMI ISA AMMAL VS. RAMA KUDUMBAN [LAWS(MAD)-1952-8-20] [REFERRED TO]
SECRETARY U I T VS. KARAMCHARI SANGH U I T [LAWS(RAJ)-1984-9-1] [REFERRED TO]
KANWAR SINGH SAINI VS. HIGH COURT OF DELHI [LAWS(SC)-2011-9-126] [REFERRED TO]
MARRAPU NARAYANAMMA VS. MARRAPU SATYANARAYANA [LAWS(APH)-1959-2-2] [REFERRED TO]
J RAMAMURTHY NAIDU VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-1960-10-21] [REFERRED TO]
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH VS. DURGA SURYANARAYANA [LAWS(APH)-1966-3-32] [REFERRED TO]
SRI BHARGAVI AGRO TECH VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (CT), KAKINADA, EAST GODAVARI [LAWS(APH)-2014-10-60] [REFERRED TO]
LARSEN AND TOUBRO LTD. VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS. [LAWS(APH)-2015-9-16] [REFERRED TO]
ALL ANGELS EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY VS. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [LAWS(MAD)-2016-7-190] [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. JANAMOHAN DAS [LAWS(ORI)-1993-1-12] [REFERRED TO]
MAHAVEER CONDUCTOR VS. NAND KISHORE [LAWS(RAJ)-2003-1-106] [REFERRED TO]
NRUPAL NARENDRABHAI DALWADI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT THRO SECRETARY [LAWS(GJH)-2017-5-156] [REFERRED TO]
DAVINDER SINGH AND AMAR SINGH AND ANR. VS. DEPUTY SECRETARY CUM SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-1964-2-25] [REFERRED TO]
JAGDISH YADAV VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-1-468] [REFERRED TO]
MOVVA VEERAYYA VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-1959-7-4] [REFERRED TO]
SHEIK HUSSAIN AND SONS VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-1963-4-1] [REFERRED TO]
WESTINGHOUSE SAXBY FARMER LTD VS. RAJ BEHARI RAM [LAWS(CAL)-1995-4-2] [REFERRED TO]
GODREJ & BOYCE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LIMITED VS. SECUR INDUSTRIES LIMITED [LAWS(ALL)-2013-1-62] [REFERRED TO]
UTTAMCHAND HUKUMCHAND SHET VS. VISHWANATH BINDRAVAN BUNDELKHANDI [LAWS(BOM)-1972-11-3] [REFERRED TO]
SANT GADGE SEVA NIKETAN U P VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2006-3-7] [REFERRED TO]
MOHD SAJID ANSARI VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2006-4-48] [REFERRED TO]
SHEO SHANKAR SINGH YADAV VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(ALL)-1996-11-27] [REFERRED TO]
TARA PRASAD SONKAR VS. BINOD DEVI [LAWS(ALL)-2022-5-70] [REFERRED TO]
KALICHARAN SHARMA VS. C.G. GOVERNMENT AND ORS. [LAWS(CHHCDRC)-2015-2-3] [REFERRED TO]
PROJECT OFFICER, JAIPUR ZILA DUGDHA UTPADAK SAHAKARI SANGH LTD VS. THE PRESIDING OFFICER [LAWS(RAJ)-2014-7-38] [REFERRED TO]
SANCHATINI SAVINGS AND INVESTMENT I LTD VS. MADHUSUDAN GHOSE [LAWS(MPH)-1985-8-21] [REFERRED TO]
JAGDISH AND VS. M P [LAWS(MPH)-2000-8-44] [REFERRED TO]
RAJ KUMAR GUPTA VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-1989-5-11] [REFERRED TO]
SURESH CHANDRA VS. GENERAL MANAGER RAJ STATE BRIDGE AND CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION [LAWS(RAJ)-2002-1-78] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY SINGH LAMBA VS. PANJAB UNIVERSITY CHANDIGARH [LAWS(P&H)-1975-3-3] [REFERRED TO]
SUMAN KUMAR @ SHAMBHU SINGH VS. STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS [LAWS(PAT)-2013-10-77] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)In these appeals the question whether the Industrial Tribunal ( Bank Disputes) had jurisdiction to make the awards has been directed by the Ct. to be tried as a preliminary issue. The decision depends on the true construction of Ss. 7, 8, 15 and 16 Industrial Disputes Act. On this question, the agreed statement of facts shown that by a notfn. of the Govt. of India dated 13-6-1949, the Central Govt. constituted an Industrial Tribunal for the adjudication of industrial disputes in banking cos. consisting of Mr. K. C. Sen, Chairman, Mr. S. P. Varma and Mr. J. N. Mazumdar. A second notfn. dated 24-8-1949 was thereafter issued as follows:
"In exercise of the power conferred by sub s. (1), S. 8, Industrial Disputes Act, the Central Govt. was pleased to appoint Mr. N. Chandrasekhara Aiyar as a member of the Industrial Tribunal constituted by the notfns. of the Govt. of India in the Ministry of Labour dated 13-6-1949, 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 12 to 16-9-1949. It thereafter sat at Delhi and Patna between 19-9-1949 and 3-4-1950. Further sittings were held, at some of which Mr. Chandrasekhara Aiyar was absent from 23-11-1949 to 20-2-1950 as his services were placed at the disposal of the Ministry of External Affairs as a member of the Indo-Pakistan Boundary Disputes Tribunal. Between 23-11-1949 and 20-2-1950 , Mr. Sen and Mr. Mazumdar together sat at several places and made certain awards. Those awards have been accepted by the Govt. u/S. 15 of the Act and published in the Gazette as the awards of the Tribunal. The Tribunal held its sittings in Bombay to hear general issues from 16-1-1950 and concluded them on 3-4-1950 . In the agreed statement of facts, it is stated that the services of Mr. Chandrasekhara Aiyar were not available to the Tribunal from the afternoon of 23-11-1949 to the forenoon of 20-2-1950. From 16-1-1950 upto 20-2-1950, several matters, particularly including 15 items covering, inter alia, Issues 1, 2, 3, 4, 15, 23, 27, 28, 33, 34, 37 and dealing with the question of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in respect of officers regarding bank having branches in more than one Province and banks in liquadation, question of retrospective effect to be given to the award, question relating to provident and guarantee fund and allowances to special categories of workmen, were dealt with by the Tribunal. From the notes of the proceedings of the Tribunal it appears that as numerous banks and workmen were parties to the proceedings, some workmen who had not found it convenient to attend throughout appeared and put forth their views in respect of the aforesaid issues and questions after Mr. Chandrasekhara Aiyar started his work from the afternoon of 20-2-1950 again by sitting with Mr. Sen and Mr. Mazumdar.

(2.)The jurisdiction of the Tribunal of the aforesaid three persons to make the award is disputed on two grounds. (1) That when Mr. Chandrasekhara Aiyar's services ceased to be available as mentioned in the agreed statement of facts, the remaining two members had to be re-appointed to constitute a Tribunal. (2) That when Mr. Chandrasekhara Aiyar began to sit again with Mr. Sen and Mr. Mazumdar from the forenoon of 20-2-1950, it was imperative to issue a notfn. constituting a tribunal u /S. 7 of the Industrial Disputes 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 notfn. and that Mr. Chandrasekhara Aiyar's services having ceased to be available on 23-11-1949, he cannot sit again with the other two members to form the Tribunal in the absence of a notfn. u /S. 7.
(3.)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 Ct. of Inquiry and a Tribunal for adjudication. Relevant portions of Ss. 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 Govt. may as occasion arises by notfn. 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 Govt. thinks fit.

(3) The chairman shall be an independent person and the other members shall be persons appointed in equal numbers to represent the parties to the dispute and any person appointed to represent a party shall be appointed on the recommendation of that party :

(4) A Board, having the prescribed quorum may act notwithstanding the absence of the chairman or any of its members or any vacancy in its number.

Provided that if the appropriate Govt. notifies the Board that the services of the chairman or any other member have ceased to be available, the Board shall not act until a new chairman or member, as the case may be, has been appointed. "

6.(1) "The appropriate Govt. may as occasion arises by notfn. in the official Gazette constitute a Ct. of Inquiry for inquiring into any matter appearing to be connected with or relevant to an industrial dispute.

(2) A Ct. may consist of one independent person or of such number of independent persons as the appropriate Govt. may think fit and where a Ct. consists of two or more members, one of them shall be appointed as the chairman.

(3) A Ct. having the prescribed quorum, may act notwithstanding the absence of the chairman or any of its members or any vacancy in its number.

Provided that, if the appropriate Govt. notifes the Ct. that the services of the chairman have ceased to be available, the Ct. shall not act until a new chairman has been appointed."

7.(1) "The appropriate Govt. may constitute one or more Industrial Tribunals for the adjudication of industrial disputes in accordance with the provisions of this Act.

(2) A Tribunal shall consist of such number of member as the appropriate Govt. thinks fit. Where the Tribunal consists of two or more members, one of them shall be appointed as the chairman.

(3) Every member of the Tribunal shall be an independent person,

(a) who is or has been a Judge of a H. C. or a Dist. J. or

(b) is qualified for appointment as a Judge of a H. C. :

Provided that the appointment to a Tribunal of any person not qualified under part (a) shall be made in consultation with the H. C. of the Province in which the Tribunal has or is intended to have, its usual place of sitting. "

8. (1) "If the services of the chairman of a Board or of the chairman or other member of a Ct. or Tribunal cease to be available at any time the appropriate Govt. 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. Ct. or Tribunal so reconstituted.

(2) Where a Ct. or Tribunal consists of one person only and his services cease to be available the appropriate Govt. shall appoint another independent person in his place, and 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 Govt. shall appoint in the manner specified in sub-s. (3), S. 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 refd. to a Tribunal for adjudication, it shall hold its proceedings expeditiously and shall, as soon as practicable on the conclusion hereof, submit its award to the appropriate Govt.

(2) On receipt of such award, the appropriate Govt. shall by order in writing declare the award to be binding :

(4) Save as provided in the proviso to sub-s. 8, S.19, an award declared to be binding under this section shall not be called in question in any manner."

16. "The report of a Board or Ct. and the award of a Tribunal shall be in writing and shall be signed by all the members of the Board, Ct. or Tribunal, as the case may be:

Provided that nothing in this section shall be deemed to prevent any member of the Board, Ct. or Tribunal from recording a minute of dissent from a report or award from any recommendation made therein."

;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.