SWADESHI COTTON MILLS CO LIMITED R J HOLLEY Vs. STATE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL U P:STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
LAWS(SC)-1961-3-40
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ALLAHABAD)
Decided on
March 17,1961
SWADESHI COTTON MILLS COMPANY LIMITED,R.J.HOLLEY
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH,STATE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, UTTAR PRADESH
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
STATE OF BOM V. BHANJI MUNJI [REFERRED TO]STATE OF BOMBAY VS. PURUSHOTTAM JOG NAIK [RELIED ON]
BISWABHUSAN NAIK VS. STATE OF ORISSA [RELIED ON]
STATE OF BOMBAY VS. BHANJL MUNJI [RELIED ON]
Cited Judgements :-
SURESH PAHWA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-1994-7-28] [REFERRED <SI><S>S.17(1)</S>-URGENCY TO TAKE IMMEDIATE POSSESSION - SUBJECTIVE SATISFACTION OF THE GO]MADHYA PRADESH DAINIK VETAN BHOGI KARMACHARI SANGH VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2003-6-5] [REFERRED TO]
KONANDUR LINGAPPA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-1977-11-9] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. ROSE VALLEY REAL ESTATE & CONSTRUCTION LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CAL)-2013-7-33] [REFERRED TO]
WORKMEN MANIPAL POWER PRESS VS. P O INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL [LAWS(KAR)-1996-6-31] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. DINDIGUL SPINNERS ASSOCIATIONS [LAWS(MAD)-2022-1-216] [REFERRED TO]
ISHWARLAL GIRDHARLAL JOSHI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-1966-12-6] [REFERRED]
CENTRAL DISTILLERY AND CHEMICAL WORKS LTD VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-1962-9-11] [REFERRED TO]
KHAIRAT HUSSIAN VS. UNION OFINDIA [LAWS(ALL)-1967-10-4] [REFERRED TO]
CHAKARPUR SUGAR WORKS VS. UNION OFINDIA [LAWS(ALL)-1975-3-10] [REFERRED TO]
GHAZANFAR ALI KHAN VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-1980-11-20] [REFERRED TO]
DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT VS. RAVINDER AGGARWAL [LAWS(DLH)-1975-3-20] [REFERRED]
Ganauri Mistry VS. State of Jharkhand [LAWS(JHAR)-2012-12-61] [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION LUCKNOW VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2007-7-129] [REFERRED TO]
AMRITSAR TEXTILE CLERKS ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-1966-9-5] [REFERRED TO]
RURAL LITIGATION AND ENTITLEMENT KENDRA RLEK VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & OTHERS [LAWS(UTN)-2019-5-49] [REFERRED TO]
NATRAJ RUBBERS VS. SALES TAX OFFICER DIVISION-3 BHAVNAGAR [LAWS(GJH)-1998-12-72] [REFERRED TO]
OOMMEN CHANDY VS. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO [LAWS(KER)-2018-5-6] [REFERRED TO]
JASWANT SUGAR MILLS LTD VS. PRESIDING OFFICER INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL III [LAWS(ALL)-1961-9-9] [REFERRED TO]
DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION U P KANPUR VS. JOHN MOHAMMAD [LAWS(ALL)-1974-8-5] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAN GOLDWATER BREWERIES LTD VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(ALL)-1978-1-68] [REFERRED TO]
A H MAGERMANS VS. S K GHOSE [LAWS(CAL)-1965-5-22] [REFERRED TO]
S. SUBRAMANIAN VS. V. VELLAIKAANU AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-1977-12-35] [REFERRED TO]
A P STATE B C WELFARE ASSOCIATION VS. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE B C WELFARE DEPT [LAWS(APH)-1995-4-1] [REFERRED TO]
SILCHAR ELECTRIC SUPPLY LTD. VS. SECRETARY TO THE GOVT, OF ASSAM POWER (ELECTRICITY) MINES AND MINERALS DEPT. AND ORS. [LAWS(GAU)-1968-9-1] [REFERRED TO]
DHIRENDRA KUMAR BARTHAKUR VS. THE STATE OF ASSAM & OTHERS [LAWS(GAU)-1983-9-6] [REFERRED TO]
RAM PATAT SAROJ VS. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER LALGANJ DISTRICT [LAWS(ALL)-1992-3-7] [REFERRED TO]
B. ASHOK VS. STATE OF KERALA AND ORS. [LAWS(KER)-2015-8-161] [REFERRED TO]
K. VENGOPALAN VS. THE SECRETARY TO GOVT. COMMERCIAL TAXES AND RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, MADRAS [LAWS(MAD)-1978-3-71] [REFERRED TO]
MITHILESH KUMAR S/O JANG BAHADUR RAM VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2014-11-14] [REFERRED TO]
M/S BAPAKHAT JIBIKAPATH MIN SAMABAY SAMITY LTD., BAPAKHAT VS. TEA STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHERS [LAWS(GAU)-1980-9-7] [REFERRED TO]
WORKMEN OF MANIPAL POWER PRESS VS. PRESIDING OFFICER INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL [LAWS(KAR)-1996-6-19] [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN RAYON VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2011-10-65] [REFERRED TO]
RAM GOPAL VS. RAM KUMAR AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-1961-11-54] [REFERRED TO]
ZAHIR AHMAD VS. GANGA PRASAD A S D M BALLIA [LAWS(ALL)-1962-1-2] [REFERRED TO]
BABU LAL SHARMA VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(ALL)-1962-11-21] [REFERRED TO]
ROHTAS INDUSTRIES VS. S D AGARWAL [LAWS(SC)-1968-12-12] [DISCUSSED]
STATE OF KERALA VS. VIJAYAN [LAWS(KER)-1978-3-7] [REFERRED TO]
PILANI INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MPH)-1980-9-47] [REFERRED TO]
E.J.AUGUSTHY VS. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES [LAWS(KER)-2020-12-295] [REFERRED TO]
MADAN SINGH VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-1965-3-40] [REFERRED TO]
SMT. GURMIT KAUR ATWAL VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2005-7-138] [REFERRED]
I T C LIMITED MONGHYR BIHAR VS. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT PATNA BIHAR [LAWS(SC)-1978-7-12] [CONSIDERED]
KALEY KHAN VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-1993-6-6] [REFERRED TO]
ANCHAR ALI VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-1987-8-1] [REFERRED TO]
THE STATE OF MADRAS, REPRESENTED BY THE COLLECTOR OF TIRUNELVELI AND ORS. VS. SRI VANAMAMALAI MUTT, NANGUNERI, REPRESENTED BY HIS HOLINESS SRI VANAMAMALAI RAMANUJA JEER AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-1967-10-21] [REFERRED TO]
RAMJIDAS VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-1977-10-18] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U. P. VS. NISAR AHMAD [LAWS(ALL)-1974-12-32] [REFERRED TO]
DHARAM RAM VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND [LAWS(UTN)-2013-10-7] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HARYANA VS. HARI RAM YADAV [LAWS(SC)-1994-1-107] [RELIED ON]
KRISHNADAS VITHALDAS SANJANWALA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-1965-10-10] [REFERRED]
P DWARAKNATH REDDY VS. NEW INDIA MARITIME AGENCIES [LAWS(MAD)-1990-11-45] [REFERRED TO]
NARAYAN GOVIND GAVATE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-1967-6-5] [REFERRED TO]
JYOTI PRASAD BANERJEE VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CAL)-1974-9-8] [REFERRED TO]
BRIJENDRA PRATAP SINGH VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-1997-11-125] [REFERRED TO]
RAM RAKHA AND COMPANY VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND ORS. [LAWS(HPH)-1972-11-6] [REFERRED TO]
CEO JODHPUR VS. MD AJEET SINGH [LAWS(RAJ)-2006-5-41] [REFERRED TO]
HINDUSTAN INDUSTRIES AND MACHINE MFG. CO. (P) LTD. AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-1971-4-58] [REFERRED TO]
MANILAL BHUKHANDAS CHEVLI VS. INDUSTRIAL COURT GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-1964-2-6] [REFERRED]
MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-1966-1-17] [REFERRED TO]
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE BACKWARD CLASS WELFARE ASSOCIATION REGISTERED AND VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH BACKWARD CLASSES WELFARE P 2 DEPARTMENT [LAWS(APH)-1995-4-15] [REFERRED TO]
BENOY KRISHNA VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-1965-11-8] [REFERRED TO]
LAXMAN KUMAJIBHAI BAROT VS. HARISHCHANDRA SINGH COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AHMEDABAD [LAWS(GJH)-1979-8-18] [REFERRED]
RASHTRIYA CHINI MILL MAZDOOR UNION VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(ALL)-1965-8-9] [REFERRED TO]
DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY VS. P K GEORGE [LAWS(KER)-1973-11-25] [REFERRED TO]
NARAYAN GOVIND GAVATE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA:NARAYAN GOVIND GAVATE [LAWS(SC)-1976-10-2] [RELIED ON]
CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF BANGALORE VS. KESORAM INDUSTRIES AND COTTON MILLS LIMITED DUNLOP INDIA LIMITED [LAWS(SC)-1989-12-43] [RELIED ON]
ABDUL JABBAR VS. ST OF W B [LAWS(CAL)-1966-11-4] [REFERRED TO]
PADMALOCHAN PANDA VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-2000-5-4] [REFERRED TO]
Mannalal Gupta VS. Municipal Council, Piparia [LAWS(MPH)-1963-10-11] [REFERRED TO]
PILANI INVESTMENT CORPORATION LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MPH)-1979-9-14] [REFERRED TO]
MOTILAL VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-1997-6-9] [REFERRED TO]
BASTI SUGAR MILLS CO LTD VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-1998-8-123] [REFERRED TO]
DIRECTOR OF POSTAL SERVICES VS. DAYA NAND [LAWS(DLH)-1972-1-19] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Wanchoo, J. -
(1.)This group of appeals raises a question about the constitutionality of S. 3 of the United Provinces Industrial Disputes Act, No. XXVIII of 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the validity of two general orders passed thereunder on March 15, 1951. The appellants are certain industrial concerns. There were disputes between them and their workmen which were referred for adjudication to industrial tribunals alleged to have been set up under the general orders on March 15, 1951. Certain awards were passed which were taken in appeal by the present appellants to the Labour Appellate Tribunal and they failed there also. They then filed petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution in the Allahabad High Court challenging the constitutionality of S. 3 of the Act and the validity of the two general orders passed on March, 15, 1951, by which industrial tribunals were set up. The High Court held that S. 3 of the Act was constitutional . It however held that the two general orders dated March 15, 1951, were invalid; but it went on to hold that orders of reference passed in these cases were special orders as envisaged under S. 3 of the Act and were therefore not invalid; in consequence it dismissed the petitions. The appellants then applied for and obtained certificates for leave to appeal; and that is how the matter has come up before us.
(2.)It is unnecessary to set out the facts further in respect of these appeals, as the only points argued before us are about the constitutionality of S. 3 and the validity of the two general orders of 1951 and also of the references made in these cases. It is not disputed that if the appellants fail on these points their appeals in this Court must fail. We shall therefore first take up the question of the constitutionality of S. 3 of the Act.
(3.)The relevant provision of S. 3 in 1951 with which we are concerned was in these terms:-
"If, in the opinion of the State Government it is necessary or expedient so to do for securing the public safety or convenience, or the maintenance of public order or supplies and services essential to the life of the community, or for maintaining employment, it may, by general or special order, make provision-
**********
(c) for appointing industrial courts;
(d) for referring any industrial dispute for conciliation or adjudication in the manner provided in the order;
**********
(g) for any incidental or supplementary matters which appear to the State Government necessary or expedient for the purposes of the order:
**********"
(2.)It is unnecessary to set out the facts further in respect of these appeals, as the only points argued before us are about the constitutionality of S. 3 and the validity of the two general orders of 1951 and also of the references made in these cases. It is not disputed that if the appellants fail on these points their appeals in this Court must fail. We shall therefore first take up the question of the constitutionality of S. 3 of the Act.
(3.)The relevant provision of S. 3 in 1951 with which we are concerned was in these terms:-
"If, in the opinion of the State Government it is necessary or expedient so to do for securing the public safety or convenience, or the maintenance of public order or supplies and services essential to the life of the community, or for maintaining employment, it may, by general or special order, make provision-
**********
(c) for appointing industrial courts;
(d) for referring any industrial dispute for conciliation or adjudication in the manner provided in the order;
**********
(g) for any incidental or supplementary matters which appear to the State Government necessary or expedient for the purposes of the order:
**********"
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.