Case Note & Summary
The case before the Supreme Court concerned the power of the State Government to supersede a pending industrial dispute reference under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The dispute arose between the management of Bata Shoe Co. Ltd. and its dismissed workmen. The Government of Bihar had referred two separate industrial disputes to an industrial tribunal on October 8, 1954, and January 15, 1955, respectively. These references were pending adjudication and had been consolidated by the tribunal. On September 17, 1955, the Government issued a third notification purporting to supersede the earlier references, combine the disputes, add the Bata Mazdoor Union as a party, and refer the consolidated dispute afresh to the same tribunal. The tribunal, upon receipt of this notification, cancelled the hearing of the prior references and closed their files. The Bata Company and its workmen filed separate writ petitions before the Patna High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, challenging the third notification as illegal and ultra vires. The High Court allowed the petitions, quashed the notification by a writ of certiorari, and issued a mandamus directing the tribunal to proceed expeditiously with the original reference cases. The State of Bihar appealed to the Supreme Court by special leave. The Supreme Court examined whether Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act confers on the appropriate Government the power to cancel or supersede a reference pending adjudication. It held that the power under Section 10(1) is exhausted once the reference is made, and the Government becomes functus officio. There is no express or implied authority to revoke or supersede the reference. The Court further held that Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which provides for the power to rescind notifications, cannot be invoked because the subject matter, context, and effect of Section 10(1) are inconsistent with such application. The Court also clarified that a reference under Section 10(1) is an administrative act, and therefore the appropriate writ to challenge an invalid supersession is mandamus rather than certiorari. The Supreme Court overruled the decisions in Textile Workers' Union v. State of Punjab and Hayendranath Bose v. Second Industrial Tribunal, explained Strawboard Manufacturing Co. v. Gutta Mill Workers' Union, held Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Their Workmen inapplicable, and distinguished South Indian Estate Labour Relations Organisation v. State of Madras. Consequently, the Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's finding that the impugned notification was invalid and ultra vires, and dismissed the appeals filed by the State of Bihar. The tribunal was directed to proceed with the original reference cases in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Power to Supersede Reference - Section 10(1) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Once an appropriate Government refers an industrial dispute for adjudication under Section 10(1), it becomes functus officio and cannot cancel or supersede the reference pending before the tribunal. The State of Bihar's third notification superseding two earlier references was held invalid and ultra vires because the Act does not confer such power. Held that the High Court correctly quashed the notification and directed the tribunal to proceed with the original references. B) Statutory Interpretation - Applicability of General Clauses Act - Section 21 General Clauses Act, 1897 - The rule of construction under Section 21, which empowers an authority to rescind notifications, applies only if the subject matter, context and effect of the enabling provision are not inconsistent with such application. Since Section 10(1) Industrial Disputes Act creates an adjudicatory process that cannot be undone without defeating the Act's purpose, Section 21 does not apply. Held that Section 21 cannot vest the Government with power to cancel a pending reference. C) Writ Jurisdiction - Nature of Reference and Appropriate Writ - Articles 226 and 227 Constitution of India - A reference under Section 10(1) is an administrative act, not a judicial or quasi-judicial order. Therefore, the proper remedy against an invalid supersession is a writ of mandamus directing the tribunal to proceed, rather than certiorari quashing a non-judicial act. Held that although the High Court's certiorari was not strictly appropriate, its order was affirmed because the notification was invalid and mandamus was properly issued. D) Precedents - Overruling and Distinguishing Prior Decisions - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and General Clauses Act, 1897 - The decisions in Textile Workers' Union v. State of Punjab and Hayendranath Bose v. Second Industrial Tribunal were overruled as they took a contrary view; Strawboard Manufacturing Co. v. Gutta Mill Workers' Union was explained; Minerva Mills case held inapplicable; South Indian Estate case distinguished. Held that these precedents did not support the Government's claimed power.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appropriate Government under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has the power to cancel or supersede a reference made thereunder pending adjudication before an industrial tribunal; whether Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 can confer such power by necessary implication; and whether the High Court was correct in issuing certiorari and mandamus.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and affirmed the High Court's order. The impugned notification dated September 17, 1955, was declared invalid and ultra vires. The High Court's writ of certiorari was considered not strictly appropriate because a reference under Section 10(1) is an administrative act; however, the writ of mandamus directing the tribunal to proceed with the original reference cases was upheld. The tribunal was required to proceed expeditiously with reference cases Nos. 10 of 1954 and 1 of 1955 in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Section 10(1) Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947 does not confer power to cancel or supersede a reference pending adjudication
- Section 21 General Clauses Act
- 1897 cannot apply by necessary implication due to inconsistency with subject matter
- Reference under Section 10(1) is an administrative act
- Writ of mandamus is the appropriate remedy
- not certiorari.
