Case Note & Summary
This was an appeal by certificate from a judgment and order of the Bombay High Court in Special Civil Application No. 1067 of 1964. The State of Maharashtra challenged the High Court's quashing of the State Government's order dated January 18, 1964, which made a second reference to the Industrial Tribunal. The dispute concerned a production bonus scheme between the workmen represented by Kamani Employees' Union and the management. On December 19, 1962, the State Government referred certain industrial disputes to the Industrial Tribunal, including dispute no. 3 relating to the revision of the existing production bonus scheme for daily-rated and monthly-rated workmen. While that reference was pending, on January 18, 1964, the State Government made another reference asking whether the existing incentive scheme of production bonus should be replaced by the new incentive scheme evolved by Messrs. Ibcon Private Limited in their report dated October 1963, as desired by the management. The second reference stated that the company had made a representation and that the matter was connected with or relevant to the pending dispute. The Tribunal passed an award on all disputes except demand no. 3 on February 27, 1964. The union filed an application before the Tribunal objecting to the second reference being adjudicated, arguing that it amounted to withdrawal of the previous reference and interfered with the Tribunal's powers. The management opposed this application. The Tribunal overruled the union's preliminary objection. The union then filed a writ petition under Article 226 in the Bombay High Court, which accepted the union's contention and held that the second order dated January 18, 1964 had the effect of superseding the previous reference and interfered with the Tribunal's powers. The State appealed to the Supreme Court. Before the Supreme Court, the union did not appear, and the management stated it was no longer interested. The State argued that the High Court's reasoning was fallacious, that the subject matter of the second reference could have been included in the original reference, that the Tribunal could consider the Ibcon scheme when deciding modifications to the production bonus scheme, and that the second reference was connected with the pending dispute. The Supreme Court accepted the State's contentions. It defined withdrawal as occurring when the dispute referred is taken out of the Tribunal's purview, and supersession as occurring when the second reference comprises matters totally unconnected or different from the disputes originally referred. The Court held that neither situation existed here. It reasoned that the question of modifying the production bonus scheme had to be considered having regard to the existing scheme and the suggestions of the parties. If the employer relied on the Ibcon scheme, the Tribunal was competent to consider it because it was connected with or relevant to dispute no. 3. Even without the second reference, the Tribunal could have considered the Ibcon scheme. Therefore, the specific reference made no difference, and the State was well within its jurisdiction under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and order, allowed the appeal, and directed the Tribunal to proceed expeditiously to adjudicate the pending question regarding the revision of the existing production bonus scheme, noting that the original reference was from 1962. No order as to costs was made.
Headnote
A) Labour Law - Industrial Disputes Reference - Government's Power under Section 10(1)(d) - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 10(1)(d) - The State Government referred a question about replacing the existing production bonus scheme with a scheme evolved by Ibcon Private Limited while a reference regarding revision of that scheme was pending. The Court held that the second reference was connected with or relevant to the pending dispute, and the government was within its jurisdiction to make it. Held that even without the second reference, the Tribunal could consider the Ibcon scheme, so the specific reference made no difference and did not withdraw or supersede the earlier reference (Paras 1-5). B) Labour Law - Withdrawal and Supersession of Reference - Distinction - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 10(1)(d) - Withdrawal occurs when the dispute referred is taken out of the Tribunal's purview; supersession occurs when the second reference comprises matters totally unconnected or different. The Court held neither occurred as the second question was connected to dispute no. 3 regarding production bonus. Held that the High Court erred in quashing the reference and the Tribunal must proceed expeditiously (Paras 1-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the second reference dated January 18, 1964 by the State Government was competent and within its jurisdiction under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; and whether it amounted to withdrawal or supersession of the earlier reference dated December 19, 1962, or interfered with the Tribunal's adjudication of the pending production bonus dispute.
Final Decision
The appeal was allowed; the judgment and order of the Bombay High Court were set aside; the Tribunal was directed to proceed expeditiously to adjudicate the pending question regarding the revision of the existing production bonus scheme; no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Section 10(1)(d) of Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947 empowers State Government to refer disputes connected with or relevant to a pending industrial dispute
- A second reference on a connected matter does not amount to withdrawal or supersession of the earlier reference
- Withdrawal requires taking the referred dispute out of the Tribunal's purview
- Supersession requires second reference comprising matters totally unconnected or different from original disputes
- Tribunal has jurisdiction to consider relevant schemes and proposals when adjudicating modifications to a production bonus scheme
