Case Note & Summary
The case involved industrial disputes between the management of Delhi Cloth Mills and Swatantra Bharat Mills (two units of Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd.) and their workmen. Four issues were referred to the Industrial Tribunal under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Issues 3 and 4 concerned the legality and justification of a strike at Delhi Cloth Mills, a lock-out declared by the management, and a sit-down strike at Swatantra Bharat Mills. Issue 1 related to bonus calculation, where the management argued that prior settlements barred the claim. The workmen disputed the existence of the strikes, and the Tribunal held that it could decide whether strikes actually occurred, as an incidental matter, and allow evidence on the point. Regarding bonus, the Tribunal stated it would consider the settlements after evidence. The management appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that the reference on issues 3 and 4 assumed the existence of strikes and a lock-out, and the Tribunal could not question that. The Supreme Court agreed, ruling that the Tribunal's jurisdiction under the reference was limited; as the issues were framed on the premise that strikes and a lock-out had taken place, the Tribunal could not go behind the reference to determine their existence. It directed the Tribunal to proceed on that basis and decide only the legality and justification of the actions. The bonus issue was left to be determined by the Tribunal on evidence.
Headnote
A) Industrial Disputes - Jurisdiction of Industrial Tribunal - Scope of Reference - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 10(1) - The reference to the Industrial Tribunal assumed the existence of strikes and a lock-out; the Tribunal could not inquire into their existence but only into their legality and justification.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Tribunal could go beyond the terms of reference and decide whether strikes and lock-out existed, or whether it was bound by the reference's assumption of their existence.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court held that on the issues as framed, it was not open to the workmen to question the existence of the strikes or to the Management to deny the declaration of a lock-out. The Tribunal must proceed on the basis that strikes and lock-out had taken place, and decide only their legality and justification. The appeal was allowed and the Tribunal's order was set aside to that extent.
Law Points
- industrial tribunal jurisdiction
- scope of reference
- incidental matters
- strike and lock-out legality
- bonus settlements
Case Details
1966 LawText (SC) (09) 41
G.K. Mitter, K.N. Wanchoo
1967 AIR 469, 1967 SCR (1) 882
Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Industrial dispute between management and workmen regarding legality and justification of strikes and lock-out, and bonus calculation.
Remedy Sought
Management sought to prevent the Tribunal from inquiring into the existence of strikes and lock-out, contending that the reference assumed their existence.
Filing Reason
The Management challenged the Tribunal's ruling that it could decide whether strikes occurred, arguing it was beyond the reference.
Previous Decisions
The Industrial Tribunal held that it had jurisdiction to decide the existence of strikes, as an incidental matter, and that the parties could adduce evidence on it.
Issues
Whether an Industrial Tribunal, under a reference under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, can go beyond the terms of the reference and determine the existence of a strike or lock-out when the reference assumes its existence and only calls for a decision on legality and justification.
Submissions/Arguments
Management contended that the reference on issues 3 and 4 assumed the existence of strikes and lock-out, and the Tribunal could not question that; it must confine itself to legality and justification.
Workmen disputed the existence of strikes, and the Tribunal ruled that it could decide that as an incidental matter within its jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi
When a reference is made to an Industrial Tribunal under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Tribunal's jurisdiction is limited to the points specifically referred. If the reference assumes the existence of a fact (such as a strike or lock-out), the Tribunal cannot go behind that assumption and inquire into its existence; it must adjudicate only the questions referred, such as legality and justification. Matters merely incidental to the determination of the referred points can be decided, but questioning the very basis of the reference is impermissible.
Judgment Excerpts
The basis of issues 3 and 4 was that there were strikes at the two units and a lock-out declared by the Management at one.
On the issues as framed, it would not be open to the workmen to question the existence of the strikes or to the Management to deny the declaration of a lock-out.
Procedural History
Industrial disputes between the management of Delhi Cloth Mills and Swatantra Bharat Mills and their workmen were referred to the Industrial Tribunal under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Tribunal, in its preliminary order, held that it had jurisdiction to decide whether strikes had actually occurred, as an incidental matter, and allowed the parties to adduce evidence on that point. The Management appealed to the Supreme Court against this order.
Acts & Sections
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: 10(1)
