Case Note & Summary
The appellant, a public limited company, operated a cement factory at Sawaimadhopur and a limestone quarry at Phallodi, 24 km away. It had two separate sets of certified Standing Orders—one for factory workmen certified in 1954 and another for quarry workmen certified in 1961. Until April 1967, both sets provided for superannuation at age 55 with possible extension to 60. Following a dispute at the cement factory, a settlement dated 16 December 1966 was reached between the company and the respondent union, raising the superannuation age for factory workmen from 55 to 58 without further extension. The quarry Standing Orders remained unchanged at 55. On 3 April 1968, the company informed Bhisham Varma, an incline driver at the quarry, that he had reached retirement age and gave him notice of retirement effective 2 May 1968. Varma wrote on 30 April 1968 that his service record incorrectly showed his age as 55; according to his horoscope, he was about 50. The company replied on 9 July 1968, reaffirming the retirement. The union then wrote to the Regional Labour Commissioner on 18 July 1968, seeking reinstatement and legal proceedings. The Central Government made a reference under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, asking whether the termination of Varma on grounds of superannuation was legal and justified, and if not, what relief he was entitled to. Before the Tribunal, the union claimed that the quarry and cement factory were under the same management with financial integrality and transferable workmen, and that the 1966 settlement applied to all workmen, raising the retirement age to 58. It also contended that superannuation age could not be a subject of Standing Orders under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. The company argued that the settlement was specific to the cement factory and that the quarry was governed by its own certified Standing Orders; the appropriate governments differed for the two units. The Tribunal held that the factory and quarry were units of the same establishment and that uniform service conditions should apply; it also held that superannuation could not be included in Standing Orders. Consequently, it quashed the termination and directed reinstatement with full back wages. The company appealed by special leave. The Supreme Court, per Mitter J., found that the Tribunal had exceeded the scope of the reference. It noted that the dispute referred was limited to whether the termination on grounds of superannuation was legal, and the workman's own representation was that his true age was 50, not that the superannuation age should be 58. The Tribunal never addressed that age correction claim. The Court relied on Sindhu Resettlement Corporation Ltd. v. Industrial Tribunal, Gujarat, [1968] 1 S.C.R. 515, and held that the Tribunal must confine itself to the terms of reference. Since the issue of different superannuation ages was not raised before the conciliation officer or included in the reference, the Tribunal's finding on that point was beyond jurisdiction. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the award.
Headnote
A) Industrial Disputes - Tribunal's Jurisdiction - Scope of Reference - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 10(1)(d) - The Industrial Tribunal cannot travel beyond the terms of reference made by the appropriate government; it must adjudicate only the dispute actually referred. In this case, the reference was limited to the legality and justification of the termination of Bhisham Varma on grounds of superannuation, but the Tribunal went into the question whether the company could have two different ages of superannuation for its cement factory and quarry workers. Held that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by not examining the actual dispute between the parties and by substituting its own view on uniformity of service conditions; the award was set aside (Paras 1-7). B) Industrial Disputes - Superannuation Age - Standing Orders - Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 - The Tribunal held that superannuation age could not be a subject of Standing Orders; however, since this issue was beyond the scope of reference, the Supreme Court did not uphold that finding but observed that the Tribunal never addressed the workman's claim of wrong age recording. The Court noted that the workman could have raised the issue of higher superannuation age, but had not done so before the conciliation officer, and therefore the reference did not include such dispute (Paras 1-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Central Government Industrial Tribunal exceeded the scope of the reference under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by adjudicating on the validity of having different superannuation ages for quarry and factory workers, instead of confining itself to the specific dispute regarding termination of Bhisham Varma on grounds of superannuation.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, and held that the Tribunal had exceeded the scope of the reference. The Court found that the Tribunal failed to examine the actual dispute and did not address the workman's claim of incorrect age; it did not remand the matter.
Law Points
- Industrial Tribunal cannot go beyond scope of reference under Section 10(1)(d) of Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
- Tribunal must examine actual dispute between parties at time of reference
- Tribunal cannot adjudicate issues not raised before conciliation
- Scope of reference is determined by terms of reference and prior correspondence
