Case Note & Summary
This case involved an industrial dispute between Bengal Chemical & Pharmaceutical Works Ltd., Calcutta and its workmen represented by Bengal Chemical Mazdoor Union, Calcutta, concerning a demand for increase in dearness allowance. The dispute arose after a previous award made on April 26, 1951, which was confirmed by the Labour Appellate Tribunal on August 30, 1951, had not been terminated. Subsequently, the employees raised fresh demands leading to a written agreement providing that the existing dearness allowance would prevail but was adjustable to future substantial changes in the cost of living index. As the cost of living increased, disputes arose, and the Government of West Bengal referred the dispute to the Second Industrial Tribunal on September 13, 1956, under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Later, on April 9, 1957, the Government transferred the dispute to the Fifth Industrial Tribunal. The Fifth Industrial Tribunal, after inquiry, made an award on August 26, 1957, which was modified on November 29, 1957, granting an increase of Rs. 7 in dearness allowance for pay scale up to Rs. 50 and Rs. 5 for higher pay scales. Both parties appealed to the Supreme Court by special leave under Article 136. The Company raised several contentions: that the Government lacked power to transfer the dispute; that the reference was bad because the 1951 award had not been terminated under Section 19(6); that there was no change in circumstances to justify a new award; that the Tribunal wrongly considered the rise in cost of living index between 1954 and 1957 instead of from 1951; that the Tribunal relied on the Second Engineering Award of 1950 which was already considered in the earlier award; and that the Tribunal applied wrong criteria in computation. The Supreme Court held that the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as amended by the Industrial Disputes (Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1956 and the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1957, empowered the Government to transfer a reference from one Tribunal to another under Section 33B. It further held that the fresh agreement between the parties superseded the previous award, even though the latter had not been terminated, because it started a new chapter in their relationship. The Court also delineated the scope of its jurisdiction under Article 136, stating that it is a discretionary power to be exercised only in exceptional cases such as violation of natural justice, important questions of industrial law, or other special circumstances, and that findings of fact by an Industrial Tribunal based on consideration of the entire material should not be interfered with. Accordingly, both appeals were dismissed and the award of the Fifth Industrial Tribunal was upheld.
Headnote
A) Industrial Dispute - Transfer of Reference - Power of Appropriate Government - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Sections 2(r), 7A, 33B - The Government referred a dispute to the Second Industrial Tribunal and later transferred it to the Fifth Industrial Tribunal; the Company challenged the transfer contending lack of power. Held that the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as amended by the Industrial Disputes (Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1956 and the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1957, empowered the appropriate Government to transfer a proceeding from one Tribunal to another under Section 33B, and the definition of 'Tribunal' in Section 2(r) included Tribunals constituted under Section 7A.
B) Industrial Dispute - Effect of Fresh Agreement on Previous Award - Supersession of Award - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 19(6) - Even though the previous award of 1951 had not been terminated in accordance with Section 19(6), the parties entered into a fresh written agreement on new demands relating to dearness allowance, which started a fresh chapter regulating their relationship; Held that the previous award must be deemed to have been superseded by the new agreement, and therefore the reference based on the new dispute was valid.
C) Constitutional Law - Supreme Court's Jurisdiction under Article 136 - Scope of Discretionary Power - Constitution of India, Article 136 - Article 136 does not confer a right of appeal but a discretionary power; it should be exercised only in cases of violation of natural justice, important questions of industrial law, or exceptional circumstances; Industrial Disputes Act is a self-contained code aiming at quick resolution of industrial disputes for industrial peace; Held that a liberal exercise of this power would undermine the fundamental basis of tribunal decisions.
D) Industrial Dispute - Findings of Fact by Tribunal - Non-interference by Supreme Court - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - The Tribunal considered the entire material and overall picture to determine the increase in dearness allowance based on cost of living index; Held that the Supreme Court would not interfere with such findings of fact or allow a party to make a new case for the first time unless there is violation of natural justice or perversity.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Government had power to transfer the dispute from one Industrial Tribunal to another; whether the reference was bad because the previous award had not been terminated; whether the Supreme Court should interfere with the Tribunal's findings of fact under Article 136
Final Decision
Both appeals dismissed. The award of the Fifth Industrial Tribunal, as modified on November 29, 1957, was upheld. The Supreme Court held that the Government had power to transfer the reference, the reference was valid, and the Tribunal's findings of fact were not interfered with.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Government empowered to transfer industrial dispute reference from one Tribunal to another under Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947 as amended
- Fresh agreement between parties supersedes previous award even if not terminated
- Supreme Court's jurisdiction under Article 136 is discretionary and to be exercised in exceptional cases
- Industrial Tribunal's findings of fact not interfered unless perverse or violation of natural justice
- Industrial Disputes Act is a self-contained code for social justice based on collective bargaining
- conciliation and arbitration
Case Details
Civil Appeals Nos. 125 and 164 of 1958
K. Subbarao, P.B. Gajendragadkar, A.K. Sarkar
Citation not available, 1959 AIR 633, 1959 SCR Supl. (2) 136
S. C. Issacs, S. N. Mukherjee, N. C. Chatterjee, Dipak Datta Choudhri
Bengal Chemical & Pharmaceutical Works Ltd., Calcutta
Their Workmen (represented by Bengal Chemical Mazdoor Union, Calcutta)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Industrial dispute regarding demand of employees for increase in dearness allowance referred by Government of West Bengal to Industrial Tribunal under Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Remedy Sought
Employees sought increase in dearness allowance; Company sought quashing of the award and challenged the validity of the reference and transfer.
Filing Reason
Dispute arose due to rise in cost of living index after a prior written agreement; Government referred the dispute for adjudication.
Previous Decisions
Previous award dated April 26, 1951 by Tribunal and confirmed by Labour Appellate Tribunal on August 30, 1951; thereafter written agreement between parties; then present reference and award by Fifth Industrial Tribunal dated August 26, 1957 (modified November 29, 1957).
Issues
Whether the Government had power to transfer the dispute from Second Industrial Tribunal to Fifth Industrial Tribunal under the amended Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Whether the reference was bad because the previous award of 1951 had not been terminated under Section 19(6) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Whether there had been any change in circumstances to justify a new award.
Whether the Tribunal erred in taking the rise in cost of living index between 1954 and 1957 instead of from the date of earlier award in 1951.
Whether the Tribunal could rely on the Second Engineering Award of 1950 which was already considered in the earlier award.
Whether the Tribunal applied wrong criteria in computing the dearness allowance.
What is the scope of the Supreme Court's jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution vis-a-vis Industrial Tribunal awards?
Submissions/Arguments
The Company contended that the order dated April 9, 1957, transferring the dispute from the Second Industrial Tribunal to the Fifth Industrial Tribunal was illegal.
The Company argued that the previous award made in 1951 and confirmed by the Labour Appellate Tribunal had not been terminated under Section 19(6) of the Act, so the present reference was bad and without jurisdiction.
The Company asserted that there was no change in circumstances between the time of the previous award and the present reference to justify a new award.
The Company submitted that the Tribunal erred in considering the rise in the cost of living index between 1954 and 1957 instead of from the date of the earlier award in 1951.
The Company contended that the Tribunal wrongly relied on the Second Engineering Award of 1950 which had already been considered in the earlier award.
The Company argued that the Tribunal applied wrong criteria in computing the amount of dearness allowance.
The Union supported the Tribunal's award and contended that the transfer was valid under the amended Act and the new agreement superseded the old award.
Ratio Decidendi
The appropriate Government has the power to transfer a pending industrial dispute from one Tribunal to another under Section 33B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as amended. A fresh agreement between the parties on new demands supersedes a previous award, even if that award has not been terminated under Section 19(6), because it starts a new chapter in the relationship. The Supreme Court's jurisdiction under Article 136 is a discretionary reserve power to be exercised only in exceptional cases such as violation of natural justice, important questions of industrial law, or other special circumstances; it does not confer a right of appeal. The Industrial Disputes Act is a self-contained code aimed at achieving social justice through collective bargaining, conciliation, and arbitration, and awards are based on circumstances peculiar to each dispute. Findings of fact by an Industrial Tribunal based on consideration of the entire material will not be interfered with by the Supreme Court unless perverse.
Judgment Excerpts
Article 136 of the Constitution does not confer a right of appeal to any party from the decision of any tribunal, but it confers a discretionary power on the Supreme Court to grant special leave to appeal from the order of any tribunal in the territory of India.
The Industrial Disputes Act is intended to be a self-contained one and it seeks to achieve social justice on the basis of collective bargaining, conciliation and arbitration. Awards are given on circumstances peculiar to each dispute and the tribunals are, to a large extent, free from the restrictions of technical considerations imposed on courts.
Where, in spite of a previous award, the employees after raising fresh demands entered into a new agreement with the employer which started a fresh chapter regulating the relationship of the parties, the previous award, though not terminated in accordance with the provisions of law, must be deemed to have been superseded.
Procedural History
A previous award was made on April 26, 1951, and confirmed by Labour Appellate Tribunal on August 30, 1951. Later, employees raised fresh demands and a written agreement was entered into between the parties regarding dearness allowance. Disputes arose due to increase in cost of living index. On September 13, 1956, the Government of West Bengal referred the dispute to the Second Industrial Tribunal under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Industrial Disputes (Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1956 came into force on August 28, 1956, and the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1957 further amended the Act. On April 9, 1957, the Government transferred the dispute from Second Industrial Tribunal to Fifth Industrial Tribunal. The Fifth Industrial Tribunal made an award on August 26, 1957, which was modified on November 29, 1957. Both parties appealed to the Supreme Court by special leave under Article 136. The Supreme Court delivered judgment on January 28, 1959.
Acts & Sections
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Section 2(r), Section 7A, Section 10, Section 19(6), Section 33B
- Industrial Disputes (Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1956: Section 30
- Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1957: Section 2
- Constitution of India: Article 136
