Case Note & Summary
The appeal by certificate of the Punjab High Court arose from an industrial dispute between Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. (appellant-mills) and its workman Sharda Singh (respondent). The dispute concerned dismissal of the workman and an interim order passed by the Industrial Tribunal directing reinstatement and payment of full wages. The appellant-mills challenged the interim order by way of a writ petition in the High Court, which was dismissed, leading to the present appeal. The factual sequence began on 28.08.1956, when the respondent was transferred from night to day shift under the Standing Orders while an industrial dispute was pending. He failed to report for day shift from 30.08.1956 and, on 01.09.1956, complained to the General Manager of arbitrary treatment. On 04.09.1956, he filed an application under Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Industrial Tribunal, alleging that the transfer altered service conditions in violation of Section 33. A domestic inquiry was conducted and, on 25.02.1957, the inquiry officer found the charge of misconduct proved. On 05.03.1957, the General Manager ordered dismissal but directed seeking permission under Section 33. Meanwhile, the Industrial Disputes (Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1956 brought amendments to Sections 33 and 33A into force on 10.03.1957. The amended Section 33 permitted an employer to take action unconnected with the pending dispute by paying one month's wages and applying for approval. Believing the misconduct to be unconnected with the dispute, the management dismissed the respondent on 02.04.1957 after tendering one month's wages and applied for approval. The respondent then filed a fresh application under Section 33A on 09.04.1957, asserting that dismissal without express permission of the tribunal contravened Section 33. On 18.04.1957, the tribunal passed an interim order directing reinstatement and wages. That application was dismissed as defective on 06.05.1957, and a corrected application was filed the same day. On 16.05.1957, the tribunal again passed an interim order directing the appellant-mills to permit the respondent to work from 17.05.1957 and pay full wages if not taken back. The appellant-mills challenged this interim order by writ petition in the Punjab High Court, contending that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction under the amended law and had no power to grant interim reinstatement or full wages. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the old Section 33 applied under Section 30 of the Amendment Act and that the interim relief was within jurisdiction. Hence the appeal to the Supreme Court. The main legal issues were whether the tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the Section 33A application after the amendment and whether it could pass an interim order of reinstatement or full wages before deciding the merits. The appellant argued that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction under the amended law and that the interim order was beyond jurisdiction, granting final relief and prejudging the case. The respondent contended that the order was within jurisdiction and justified. The Supreme Court did not decide the first jurisdictional issue because it found the interim order manifestly erroneous. It referred to The Management of Hotel Imperial v. Hotel Workers' Union and Punjab National Bank v. All India Punjab National Bank Employees' Federation. The Court observed that in a Section 33A complaint based on dismissal against Section 33, the final relief would be reinstatement; granting reinstatement or full wages as an interim measure would amount to granting the whole relief at the outset without deciding the legality of dismissal after hearing the employer, thus prejudging the case. Therefore, the tribunal's interim order could not be supported. The appeal was allowed; the interim order dated 16.05.1957 was set aside and the High Court's judgment was quashed. The question of the tribunal's jurisdiction under the amended provisions was left open.
Headnote
A) Labour Law - Interim Relief - Section 33A Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Industrial tribunal cannot grant interim reinstatement or full wages in a complaint under Section 33A challenging dismissal as violative of Section 33, because it would amount to granting final relief and prejudging the issue before deciding legality of dismissal - Held interim order dated 16.05.1957 was erroneous and set aside (Paras Not mentioned). B) Labour Law - Tribunal Jurisdiction - Sections 33, 33A Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Section 30 Industrial Disputes (Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1956 - Question whether tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain Section 33A application after amendment of Sections 33 and 33A left open by Supreme Court - Court found it unnecessary to decide jurisdiction issue because interim order was unsustainable (Paras Not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the industrial tribunal had jurisdiction to pass an interim order of reinstatement or full wages pending decision of a complaint under Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, challenging dismissal as violative of Section 33; and whether the tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the Section 33-A application after the amended Sections 33 and 33-A came into force on 10.03.1957.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; interim order dated 16.05.1957 passed by the Industrial Tribunal was set aside as erroneous in law; High Court judgment dismissing the writ petition was quashed; question of tribunal's jurisdiction under amended Sections 33 and 33-A was left open.
Law Points
- Industrial tribunal has no jurisdiction to grant interim reinstatement or full wages in a Section 33-A complaint challenging dismissal under Section 33 without deciding the legality of dismissal
- such interim order amounts to granting final relief and prejudging the case
- the question whether tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain Section 33-A application after amendment was left open
- referred to Hotel Imperial and Punjab National Bank cases.
