Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
  • D.K Mahajan & Ganga Parshad Jain,
  • S.M Sikri and Anand Swaroop,
Judges
  • K.L Gosain
  • A.N Grover, JJ.
Acts
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
  • D.K Mahajan & Ganga Parshad Jain,
  • S.M Sikri and Anand Swaroop,
Judges
  • K.L Gosain
  • A.N Grover, JJ.
Acts
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Court's Opinion (A.N. Grover, J.)

Factual and Procedural Background

This judgment disposes of Civil Writ No. 80 of 1958 and Civil Writ No. 1167 of 1958, which involve common points of law.

Relevant facts (from Civil Writ No. 80 of 1958): Shri Avtar Narain Gujral (date of birth stated as 4-6-1892) was appointed to an Industrial Tribunal by notification dated 29-8-1953 under Section 7 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. By a notification dated 8-11-1956 (under Section 10(1)(c) of the Act), disputes between the petitioners (trustees of Birla Education Trust running the Technical Institute of Textiles at Bhiwani) and the workers represented by the T. I. T. Staff Union were referred for adjudication.

The petitioners raised before the Tribunal a jurisdictional objection and challenged the legality of the reference principally on the ground that Shri Gujral had attained the age of 60 years on 4-6-1952 and therefore could not have been validly appointed in 1953. On 19-4-1957 the Punjab Government issued two notifications: one constituting an Industrial Tribunal under Section 7A and appointing Shri Gujral as presiding officer effective until 3-6-1957; the second extended the term of the sole member of the Industrial Tribunal, Jullundur, up to the last day of October 1957 or until pending proceedings were disposed of, whichever was earlier.

Subsequent statutory amendments and notifications (as recorded): Section 7C (via the 1956 Amendment) raised the disqualification age to 65 for presiding officers; the Punjab Amendment Act, 1957 (published 3-6-1957) amended Section 7C for Punjab raising the age to 67. The Punjab Government, by notification dated 4-7-1957, extended Shri Gujral's appointment as presiding officer from 4-6-1957 to 28-2-1958.

The present petition under Article 226 was filed on 30-1-1958. By an order dated 31-10-1957 respondent No.1 had transferred all pending cases from respondent No.2 as previously constituted to respondent No.2 newly constituted under Section 7A. Because important questions of law arose, the matter was heard by a Division Bench.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the 1953 appointment of Shri Avtar Narain Gujral to the Industrial Tribunal was illegal and void because he had attained the age of 60 years in 1952, and whether that invalidates the Tribunal's jurisdiction (writ of prohibition sought on ground of patent lack of jurisdiction).
  2. Whether, assuming the appointment was defective, Shri Gujral could be validated by later statutory changes raising the age of disqualification (Section 7C raised to 65 by the Central amendment and to 67 by the Punjab amendment), and whether the Punjab Amendment raising the age to 67 violated Article 14 of the Constitution.
  3. Whether the transfer of proceedings from the old Tribunal to the new Tribunal under Section 33B (including an order made without stated reasons) was invalid.
  4. Whether the life of the Tribunal having been extended from time to time (final extension up to 31-10-1957) required a fresh reference for disputes, or whether proceedings could continue or be entrusted to a new Tribunal constituted under the amended Act without a fresh reference.
  5. Whether the appropriate procedure for the disputes was under Section 12(5) (after conciliation) rather than the reference made under Section 10(1)(c).
  6. Whether the T. I. T. Staff Union was sufficiently representative (it reportedly had about 43 members of a category totalling about 150 clerical/supervisory staff out of 3,200 workmen) so as to make the disputes an "industrial dispute" within the meaning of the Act.
  7. The effect of acquiescence, laches and delay on the petitioners' entitlement to relief under Article 226.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioners' Arguments

  • The appointment of Shri Gujral in 1953 was illegal and void because he had attained the age of 60 on 4-6-1952 and therefore was not qualified for appointment.
  • Because the 1953 appointment was invalid, later amendments raising the disqualification age (Section 7C) could not validate the appointment.
  • The raising of the age limit in Punjab to 67 years infringed Article 14 of the Constitution (no reason or justification for different age in Punjab compared to the Central Act's 65).
  • The transfer of proceedings under Section 33B was bad because no reasons were stated in the transfer order as required by that provision.
  • The reference of disputes was made on 18-11-1956 and the Tribunal's life was extended only to 31-10-1957; therefore the Tribunal's life ended and proceedings could not be continued without a fresh reference.
  • The Conciliation Officer had dealt with demands under Section 12 and Section 12(5) procedure should have been followed rather than making a reference under Section 10(1)(c).
  • The T. I. T. Staff Union represented only about 43 out of 3,200 workmen and therefore was not representative; the disputes were not industrial disputes and adjudication was without jurisdiction.

Respondents' / State's Arguments

  • The petitioners are disentitled to relief because of acquiescence, laches and delay; preliminary objections were raised in November 1956 but the main illegality challenge was not pressed until the award was about to be announced.
  • The Court should interpret Section 7(3) together with Article 217 so that Article 217(2) (the qualifications clause) is relevant to qualification, while Article 217(1) (age/duration) is a provision about the duration of office and not a disqualifying qualification for appointment to the Tribunal.
  • Authorities (including the Nagpur Bench decision in G. D. Karkare v. T. L. Shevde) support the view that the first clause of Article 217 prescribes duration and does not disqualify a person who is over 60 from being appointed to offices for which the qualifications in Article 217(2) suffice.
  • The omission to state reasons in the Section 33B transfer order is directory and not mandatory; omission does not invalidate the transfer (relying on Aeron Steel Rolling Mills v. State of Punjab).
  • The notification dated 31-10-1957 validly transferred pending cases from the old Tribunal to the new Tribunal under Section 33B as introduced by the 1956 amendment.
  • The reference in the present case was properly made under Section 10(1)(c); the appropriate Government need not state reasons or specify particulars of the dispute before making a reference (relying on State of Madras v. C. P. Sarathy).
  • The T. I. T. Staff Union represented the clerical and supervisory staff (about 150) with 43 members at the time; representative character was not challenged earlier and there is authority supporting adjudication where unions take up matters even if initially concerning individuals.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
Jagajit Cotton Textile Mills Ltd. v. Industrial Tribunal Patiala (Civil Misc. Appln. No. 143-P of 1956; AIR 1959 Punj 389) Supports the Court's view on preliminary objection concerning jurisdiction and was heard along with these petitions. The Court indicated that the preliminary objection raised by the State would be concluded by the view expressed in this case.
S. C. Prashar v. Vasantsen Dwarkadas ((1956) 29 ITR 857; (S) AIR 1956 Bom 530) Where there is a patent lack of jurisdiction a writ of prohibition will generally be granted in the exercise of discretionary powers. The Court concurred with this view as authority on the discretionary grant of prohibition where there is patent lack of jurisdiction.
Madhvalal Sindhoo v. V. R. Idurkar (1956) 30 ITR 332 (Bom) Same proposition as in S. C. Prashar concerning granting prohibition where there is patent lack of jurisdiction. Concurred as part of authority for the discretionary approach to writs where patent jurisdictional defect exists.
G. D. Karkare v. T. L. Shevde (AIR 1952 Nag. 330) Interpretation that the clause in Article 217 prescribing age is a provision about duration of office and should not be read as disqualifying a person above the age of 60 from being appointed to offices for which Article 217(2) qualifications suffice. The Court respectfully agreed with the Nagpur Bench approach and applied that reasoning to reject the petitioners' contention that Article 217(1) made Shri Gujral unqualified in 1953.
Aeron Steel Rolling Mills v. State of Punjab (Civil Writ No. 1112 of 1957; AIR 1959 Punj 386) Omission to give reasons for transfer under Section 33B is not fatal where the provision is directory rather than mandatory. Applied to hold that failure to state reasons did not invalidate the transfer of proceedings in the present case.
M. H. Quareshi v. State of Bihar (AIR 1958 SC 731) Restatement of Article 14 principles: Article 14 forbids class legislation but allows reasonable classification founded on intelligible differentia with rational relation to legislative objective; presumption of constitutionality. Used to assess the challenge under Article 14 to the Punjab Amendment raising age to 67; Court found no shown violation of Article 14.
State of Madras v. C. P. Sarathy (AIR 1953 SC 53) Government need not state reasons or specify particulars of the dispute before making a reference to a Tribunal under the Act. Relied upon to support the validity of the reference made under Section 10(1)(c) without detailed particulars.
The Kandan Textile Ltd. v. The Industrial Tribunal (AIR 1951 Mad 616) Stated the view that a dispute concerning only the rights of individual workers could not be an industrial dispute (as a general proposition). Cited in the discussion on representativeness and whether the dispute was an 'industrial dispute'. The Court noted authorities but found the representative character of the Union had not been challenged earlier.
Central Provinces Transport Services Ltd. v. Raghunath Gopal Patwardhan (1956 SCR 956; (S) AIR 1957 SC 104) Judicial opinion that a dispute between an employer and a single employee may not per se be an industrial dispute, but might become one if taken up by a Union or a number of workmen; the point was left open in some respects. Referred to by the Court in assessing whether disputes raised by the Union could be industrial disputes; the Court observed the preponderance of opinion but noted the present case did not involve a single individual dispute.
The Newspapers Ltd. v. The State Industrial Tribunal, U.P. (1957 SCR 754; (S) AIR 1957 SC 532) Held that a dispute between an employer and a single workman does not fall within the definition of "industrial dispute" under the U.P. Act; however, if the workmen as a body or a considerable section make common cause with the individual, it becomes an industrial dispute. Applied by analogy to conclude that since the present dispute was not shown to be between employer and a single employee and the Union's representative character was not challenged earlier, the objection failed.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court addressed the challenges in a structured manner, applying statutory text and cited authorities to each point raised:

  1. On the preliminary matter of writ discretion: the Court referred to its concurrence with authorities (S. C. Prashar and Madhvalal Sindhoo) that while prohibition is discretionary, where there is a patent lack of jurisdiction a writ will generally be granted unless an irresistible case for withholding it is shown. The Court indicated this principle but found that the petitioners' jurisdictional challenges lacked merit on their facts.
  2. On the central qualification point (whether Shri Gujral was qualified for appointment in 1953): the Court examined Section 7(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act and Article 217 of the Constitution. It accepted the view (as expressed by the Nagpur Bench in G. D. Karkare v. T. L. Shevde) that Article 217(1) (which provides that a High Court Judge holds office until age 60) deals with the duration of office and is not a disqualifying provision for the purposes of determining qualifications. Article 217(2), which lists the substantive qualifications (years of service as judge or advocate), alone bears on qualification. On that basis the Court held that Section 7(3)(c) is to be read with Article 217(2) and not Article 217(1), and therefore the petitioners' contention that the initial 1953 appointment was bad for want of qualification failed.
  3. Having upheld the validity of the 1953 appointment, the Court concluded that later appointments and extensions were not rendered illegal by the amendments; if the initial appointment was valid, subsequent continuations remained valid under the amended statutory framework.
  4. On the Article 14 challenge to the Punjab Amendment raising the age to 67: the Court applied the two-part test stated in M. H. Quareshi v. State of Bihar (intelligible differentia and rational relation to objective) and noted the presumption in favour of constitutionality. The petition did not allege or point to any reasons showing a violation of constitutional principles. The Court held it was open to the State legislature to fix a different age for members of an Industrial Tribunal and found no basis to conclude Article 14 was infringed.
  5. On the transfer of proceedings under Section 33B without stated reasons: the Court held that the requirement to state reasons is directory rather than mandatory and that omission to give reasons did not invalidate the transfer order. The Court relied on Aeron Steel Rolling Mills v. State of Punjab for this proposition.
  6. On whether the proceedings required a fresh reference after the Tribunal's life was extended: the Court accepted the respondents' position that the notification dated 31-10-1957 validly transferred pending cases to the newly constituted Industrial Tribunal under the amended Act (Section 33B), and that the Government had power to withdraw and transfer proceedings.
  7. On the contention that Section 12(5) procedure should have been followed: the Court noted that the reference was made under Section 10(1)(c) and that the appropriate Government may decide whether a reference should be made; Government need not state reasons or specify particulars before making a reference. The Court cited State of Madras v. C. P. Sarathy for the proposition that the Government's discretion in making a reference is not constrained by the need to state particulars.
  8. On the representativeness of the T. I. T. Staff Union: the Court recorded the State's position that the Union represented clerical and supervisory staff (about 150) and had 43 members at the relevant time, and that the representative character was not challenged at earlier stages. The Court considered authorities discussing disputes involving single employees and unions (Kandan Textile, Central Provinces Transport Services, Newspapers Ltd. v. State Industrial Tribunal) and observed that where a Union takes up a matter it may become an industrial dispute. Because the representative character of the Union had not been challenged earlier and the present case was not shown to be a dispute involving a single workman alone, the Court rejected the petitioners' objection.
  9. The Court also noted the pleadings by the State on acquiescence and laches; while acquiescence and delay are relevant in exercising Article 226 jurisdiction, the Court found no merit in the petitioners' legal points and therefore did not allow those equitable considerations to alter the outcome.

Holding and Implications

Holding: Both petitions are dismissed.

Implications and direct consequences:

  • The Court held that the 1953 appointment of Shri Avtar Narain Gujral was not invalidated by his having attained the age of 60 in 1952 because Article 217(1) is a provision regarding duration of office and does not disqualify a person for appointment; Article 217(2) is the relevant clause for determining qualifications.
  • The later statutory amendments raising the age limit (to 65 under the Central amendment and to 67 under the Punjab amendment) did not render earlier valid appointments invalid; the appointments and extensions in question remained valid on the Court's reasoning.
  • The transfer of proceedings under Section 33B without stated reasons did not invalidate the transfer; the omission to give reasons was held to be directory rather than mandatory.
  • The reference made under Section 10(1)(c) was valid; the appropriate Government need not state reasons or particulars before making such a reference.
  • The objection that the Union was not representative and that therefore there was no industrial dispute was rejected on the facts that representative character was not previously challenged and by reference to authorities explaining when individual disputes become industrial disputes.
  • Costs: the parties were directed to bear their own costs in this Court.
  • No assertion is made in the opinion that a new legal precedent was laid down beyond the Court's application and endorsement of the reasoning summarized above; the Court principally applied existing authorities and statutory interpretation to the facts before it.

This summary is confined strictly to information contained in the provided opinion and does not add or infer facts beyond that text.

Show full summary ...

    Prabhudayal Himatsingka And Others, v. The State Of Punjab And Others,

    A.N. Grover, J

    1. This judgment will dispose of Civil Writ No. 80 of 1958 and Civil Writ No. 1167 of 1958 in which common points of law are involved.

    2. The facts in Civil Writ No 80 of 1958 may be stated : Shri Avtar Narain Gujral whose date of birth is stated to be 4-6-1892, was appointed an Industrial Tribunal by a notification dated 29-8-1953 under Section 7 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (to be referred to as the Act). By a notification dated 8-11-1956, made under Section 10(1)(c) of the Act, certain disputes existing between the petitioners, who are the trustees of Birla Education Trust under whose auspices the Technical Institute of Textiles is being run at Bhiwani, and the workers represented by the Union called the T. I. T. Staff Union, were referred for adjudication.

    The petitioners appeared before the Tribunal and claim to have raised the question of jurisdiction of the Tribunal and the legality of the reference principally on the ground that Shri Gujral could not have been appointed to the Industrial Tribunal having attained the age of 60 years on 4-6-1952. On 19-4-1957 two notifications were issued by the Punjab Government. One notification was made in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 7A of the Act as inserted by Section 4 of the Industrial Disputes (Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1956, constituting an Industrial Tribunal with headquarters at Jullundur and appointing Shri Avtar Narain Gujral as its presiding Officer with effect from the date of the publication up to 3-6-1957.

    In addition to his duties as presiding officer of the newly constituted Tribunal, Shri Avtar Narain Gujral was to continue for the disposal of pending proceedings as member of the Second Industrial Tribunal, Amritsar, and as sole member of the Tribunal, Punjab, Jullundur, which had been constituted under the Act (vide Annexure 'T'). By means of the second notification, the term of appointment of the sole member of the Industrial Tribunal. Jullundur, was extended up to the last day of October 1957, or such date as the proceedings in relation to industrial disputes pending in the aforesaid Tribunal before 10-3-1957 were disposed of, whichever was earlier.

    It may be mentioned that according to Section 7C, which was inserted by the Industrial Disputes (Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1956, the age up to which the presiding officer of the Tribunal was not to be disqualified was raised to 65 years. The Act was amended so far as the State of Punjab was concerned by a notification published in the Punjab Gazette Extraordinary dated 3-6-1957, by the Industrial Disputes (Punjab Amendment), Act, 1957. Section 7C of the Central Act was amended and the age of disqualification for appointment to the Tribunal was raised to 67 years. By means of another notification, dated 4-7-1957, the Punjab Government extended the term of appointment of Shri Gujral as presiding officer of the Industrial Tribunal, Jullundur, from 4-6-1957 to 28-2-1958 (Annexure 'J').

    The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed on 30-1-J958. It may be stated that by an order, dated 31-10-1957, respondent No. 1, in exercise of powers under Section 33B of the Act, had transferred all pending cases from respondent No. 2, as previously constituted, to respondent No. 2, newly constituted under Section 7A of the Act. As certain important questions of law were raised in the petition, it was considered desirable that they should be decided by a Division Bench and now the matter has been placed before us for deciding the points of law that have arisen for decision.

    3. The preliminary objection that had been raised before, and which has been pressed again, on behalf of the State before us would be concluded by the view that has been expressed by us in Jagajit Cotton Textile Mills Ltd. v. Industrial Tribunal Patiala, Civil Misc. Appln. No. 143-P of 1956; (AIR 1959 Punj 389), which was heard along with these petitions. In the present case (Civil Writ No. 80 of 1958), a writ of prohibition is being sought on the ground that the Tribunal suffers from patent lack of jurisdiction. In the other case (Civil Misc. No. 143-P of 1956: (AIR 1959 Punj 389)) we have expressed concurrence with the view expressed by Desai J. in S. C. Prashar v. Vasantsen Dwarkadas, (1956) 29 ITR 857: ((S) AIR 1956 Bom 530), and Madhvalal Sindhoo v. V. R. Idurkar, (1956) 30 ITR 332 (Bom). According to that view although the issuance of prohibition is discretionary with this Court, but where there is patent lack of jurisdiction a writ will be granted "though not of right, nor of course, yet almost as a matter of course", unless an irresistible case for withholding the writ is made out.

    4. It is contended by the learned Advocate-General that the petitioners have disentitled themselves to any relief from this Court on the ground of acquiescence, laches and delay. It is pointed out that in November 1956 certain preliminary objections were raised by means of Annexure 'F', but the main ground with regard to the illegality and invalidity of the appointment of Shri Gujral was not raised, and it was only after all the proceedings had taken place and when the Tribunal was about to announce the award that the challenge to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal was made. Although acquiescence and laches would be a relevant factor and will have to be taken into consideration while exercising discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution, it is necessary to decide the effect of the same in the present case, as we are satisfied that there is no merit in the points that have been raised on behalf of the petitioners.

    4a. The principal point that has been agitated on behalf of the petitioners in both the petitions is that the appointment of Shri Gujral in 1953 was illegal and void as he had attained the age of 60 years on 4-6-1952. It is submitted that if his appointment in the year 1953 was bad, he could not get the benefit of the amended provisions contained in Section 7C of the Act by which the age of disqualification had been raised to 65 years. In older to see whether Shri Gujral was qualified for being appointed us a member of the Industrial Tribunal in the year 1953 it is necessary to refer to the provisions of Section 7(3) which are in the following terms :

    "7(3) Where a Tribunal consists of one member only, that member, and where it consists of two or more members, the Chairman of the Tribunal shall be a person who

    (a) is or has been a Judge of a High Court; or

    (b) is or has been a district Judge; or

    (c) is qualified for appointment as a Judge of a High Court:

    Provided that no appointment under this subsection to a Tribunal shall be made of any person not qualified under Clause (a) or Clause (b) except with the approval of the High Court of the State in which the Tribunal has, or is intended to have, its usual seat."

    It is submitted that Shri Gujral was not qualified for appointment as a Judge of the High Court on 29-8-1953 when his appointment to the Tribunal was made. Reference is invited in this connection to Article 217 of the Constitution of India, before its amendment in 1956, which relates to the appointment and conditions of the office of a Judge of a High Court. The relevant portion of the aforesaid Article may be set out below:

    "217 (i) Every Judge of a High Court shall be appointed by the President by warrant under his hand and seal after consultation with the Chief Justice of India, the Governor of the State, and, in the case of appointment of a Judge other than the Chief Justice, the Chief Justice of the High Court, and shall hold office until he attains the age of sixty years :

    (2) A person shall not be qualified for appointment as a Judge of a High Court unless he is a citizen of India and -

    (a) has for at least ten years held a judicial office in the territory of India; or

    (b) has for at least ten years been an advocate of a High Court in any State specified in the First Schedule or of two or more such Courts in succession.

    * * * * It is urged that a Judge of a High Court can hold office until he attains the age of 60 years. In other words, a person who is above the age of 60 years would not be qualified to be appointed as a Judge. With regard to Article 217(2), which deals with qualifications for appointment as a Judge, it is pointed out that the language employed is of a negative nature and does not cover all the qualifications which have been laid down for appointment of a Judge.

    In reply it is submitted by the Deputy Advocate-General that the very language of Section 7(3) of the Act shows that a person who is or has been a Judge of a High Court can also be appointed to the Tribunal, and this shows that it was never within the contemplation of the legislature that the age of retirement of a Judge of a High Court should be taken into consideration for the purposes of finding out whether he is qualified for appointment as a Judge or not. It is further pointed out that Article 217(1) of the Constitution-makes a provision, apart from other matters relating to the appointment of a Judge of a High Court, that he shall hold office until he attains the age of 60 years.

    This has nothing to do with the qualifications which are given in Article 217(2) which specifically mentions the standing of a person as a judicial officer or an advocate of a High Court for a specified period. This part of Article 217 is quite distinct and different from the first part which has nothing to do with qualifications for appointment as a Judge. Our attention was also invited to Article 224 of the Constitution as substituted by the Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act 1956, in which it is provided that the President may appoint "duly qualified persons" to be additional Judges of the Court for such period not exceeding two years as he may specify.

    These words have reference to the qualifications set out in Article 217(2) and can possibly have no reference to the provision relating to age contained in Article 217(1), because in Article 224 itself it has been provided that no person appointed as an additional or acting Judge of a High Court shall hold office after attaining the age of 60 years. The Deputy Advocate-General has relied upon G. D. Karkare v. T. L. Shevde, AIR 1952 Nag. 330, where the first clause of Article 217 came up for consideration in a matter which is quite parallel to the present case. There a questions arose whether the appointment of the Advocate-General was vitiated because he was past 60 years on the date of his appointment. The appointment of an Advocate-General is provided for by Article'165 of the Constitution. The first clause of the aforesaid Article is in the following terms :

    "The Governor of each State shall appoint a person who is qualified to be appointed a Judge of a High Court to be Advocate-General for the State."

    The Nagpur Bench expressed the view that the qualifications for the appointment of a Judge of a High Court were prescribed in the second clause of Article 217 and that the first clause of Article 217 could only be construed as one prescribing the duration of the appointment of a Judge. After considering the provisions contained in Articles 217, 221, 222, 223 and 224, it was held that the first clause of Art, 217 could not be read with the first clause of Article 165 so as to disqualify a person from being appointed Advocate-General after the age of 60 years.

    We are in respectful agreement with the view expressed with regard to the first clause of Article 217 by the Nagpur Court and consider that Section 7(3)(c) of the Act is not to be construed with reference to Article 217(1) of the Constitution and that Clause (2) of that Article alone is relevant for the purpose of seeing whether a person is qualified for appointment as a Judge of a High Court or not. In this view of the matter the principal contention raised by Mr. Daya Kishan Mahajan with regard to the initial appointment of Mr. Gujral being bad must fail. If his appointment in 1953 was legal and valid, it is conceded that his appointment later on did not become illegal and would be perfectly valid.

    5. The next submission of the learned counsel which was put forward in a half-hearted manner is that according to the Central Act, as amended by the Industrial Disputes (Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1956, the age upto which the presiding officer of the Tribuna was not to be disqualified was raised to 65 years. That age has, however, been raised to 67 years by the Industrial Disputes (Punjab Amendment) Act 1957. It is urged that this infringes Article 14 of the Constitution. It is submitted that there was no reason or justification for raising the age limit in the Punjab to 67 years when it was 65 under the Central Act. In M. H. Quareshi v. State of Bihar, AIR 1958 SC 731, their Lordships had occasion to lay down once again the meaning, scope and effect of Article 14 in the following words :

    "It is now well established that while Article 14 forbids class legislation it does not forbid reasonable classification for the purposes of legislation and that in order to pass the test of permissible classification two conditions must be fulfilled, namely, (i) the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group and (ii) such differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question.

    The classification, it has been held, may be founded on different bases, namely, geographical, or according to objects or occupations or the like and what is necessary is that there must be a nexus between the basis of classification and the object of the Act under consideration. The pronouncements of this Court further establish, amongst other things, that there is always a presumption in favour of the constitutionality of an enactment and that the burden is upon him, who attacks it, to show that there has been a clear violation of the constitutional principles."

    In the present case no reasons have been stated in the petition, nor have any been pointed out to us to show, that there has been a violation of the constitutional principles. It is open to the State legislature to fix a different age up to which member of an Industrial Tribunal can function from the age fixed by the Central enactment. It is not possible to see how any violation of Article 14 can be alleged much less established in such a matter.

    6. It is next urged that the transfer of the proceedings pending before the old Tribunal under Section 33B of the Act to the new Tribunal was bad as no reasons had been stated which it is necessary to do under Section 33B. Nothing, however, has been stated showing that any prejudice was caused to the petitioners in this behalf. The provision with regard to reasons being given for transfer is directory and not mandatory. Section 33B does not lay down that the order of transfer will not be effective if reasons therefor are not given. The omission to give reasons, therefore, cannot invalidate the order of transfer (vide Aeron Steel Rolling Mills v. State of Punjab, Civil Writ No. 1112 of 1957 decided by Bishan Narain J. on 11-4-1958 : (AIR 1959 Punj 386; L.P.A; No. 130 of 1958 filed against it was dismissed in limine).

    7. The next point that has been urged (and all the submissions that follow are made in C.W. 80 of 1958) is that the reference of the disputes between the petitioners and their workmen was made on 18-11-1956 and the life of the Tribunal was extended from time to time, the final extension having been made up to 31-10-1957. It is submitted that the reference should have been made afresh each time and that in any case the life of the Tribunal came to an end on 31-10-1957 and the proceedings could not be continued further and that these proceedings could not be entrusted to a new Tribunal constituted under the Act as amended by the Act of 1956, without a fresh reference under the law.

    The reply on behalf of the respondents is quite clear that by the notification dated 31-10-1957 all the cases pending with the Tribunal under the old Act were transferred to the Industrial Tribunal which had been appointed under section 7a of the amended act. section 33b as introduced by the amending Act of 1956 confers the power of transfer, on the State Government. By virtue of the aforesaid provision the Government can withdraw any proceedings under the Act pending before a Tribunal and transfer the same to another Tribunal and that is what was done in the present case. Thus, there is no force in the contention raised on this point.

    8. It is then submitted that in April, 1956, the Union called the T. I. T. Staff Union had made certain demands from the petitioners. These demands were taken up for conciliation by the Conciliation Officer, Punjab, under Section 12 of the Act. The Conciliation Officer sent a report under Section 12(4) in respect of those demands with regard to which the matter could not be settled. Certain demands, however, were agreed to. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the procedure laid down in Section 12(5) of the Act should have been followed and reference should have been made under that provision.

    Section 12(5) provides that if, on a consideration of the report referred to in Sub-section (4), the appropriate Government is satisfied that there is a case for reference to a Board or Tribunal, it may make such a reference. Where the appropriate Government does not make such a reference it shall record and communicate to the parties concerned its reason therefor. There is no force in this contention at all. The reference in the present case was made under Section 10(1)(c) of the Act and that is the only provision under which a reference of disputes could be made to a Tribunal. It is for the appropriate Government to decide whether a reference should be made in a particular case or not and it need not state any reasons for making the reference. Nor is it necessary for the Government to ascertain particulars of the dispute before making a reference or to specify them in the order, vide State of Madras v. C. P. Sarathy, AIR 1953 SC 53.

    9. The next contention on behalf of the petitioners is that respondent No. 3 (T. I. T. Staff Union) represented only about 43 out of 3200 workmen or the Mills managed by the petitioners and, therefore, the aforesaid Union could not be regarded as representative of a substantial number of workmen. In view of this there could be no industrial dispute between the petitioners and respondent No. 3 and the entire conciliation and adjudication proceedings were without jurisdiction.

    The position taken up by the State is that the aforesaid Union consists of only the clerical and the supervisory staff of the factory numbering about 150 workmen and of that category 43 were members of the Union at the time the dispute was raised. It was further stated in para 4 of the written statement that it appeared from the report of the Conciliation Officer, Annexure 'D', that the representative character of the Union was not challenged by the Management at any stage nor any of the workmen of the factory had opposed the demands raised by the Union. Our attention was invited to The Kandan Textile Ltd. v. The Industrial Tribunal (1) Madras, AIR 1951 Mad 616.

    In that case the view expressed was that a dispute which concerned only the rights of individual workers could not be held to be an industrial dispute. In Central Provinces Transport Services Ltd. v. Raghunath Gopal Patwardhan, 1956 SCR 956 :((S) AIR 1957 SC 104), the question whether a dispute by an individual workman would be an 'industrial dispute' as defined in Section 2(k) of the Act was considered and reference was made to the view of Rajamannar, C. J. in the Madras Case (AIR 1951 Mad 616) referred to before. It was pointed out that it became unnecessary to decide the point in the Madras Case (AIR 1951 Mad 616) as the Madras court had come to the conclusion that the reference-itself was bad for the reason that there was on material on which the Government could be satisfied that there was a dispute.

    According to Venkatarama Ayyar J. the preponderance of judicial opinion was in favour of the view that a dispute between an employer and a single employee could not per se be an industrial dispute, but it might become one if it was taken up by the Union or a number of workmen. The matter was, however, left open as in the case which was decided by their Lordships the question did not arise directly under the Act, but it arose under the Central Provinces and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act XXIII of 1947 and in the view which was taken of the rights of the respondent under that statute there was no need to express a final opinion on the question whether a dispute simpliciter between an employer and a workman would be an 'industrial dispute within Section 2(k) of the Act.

    In The Newspapers Ltd. v. The State Industrial Tribunal, U.P., 1957 SCR 754: ((S) AIR 1957 SC

    532), it has been laid down that a dispute between an employer and a single workman docs not fall within the definition of "industrial dispute" under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. But though the applicability of the Act to an individual dispute as opposed to a dispute involving a group of workmen is excluded, if the workmen as a body or a considerable section of them make common cause with the individual workman then such a dispute would be an industrial dispute. In the present case it has not been suggested that the dispute is between an employer and a single workman and it appears that the representative character of the Union was never challenged at any previous stage. It is, there-

    fore, not possible to accept the objection that has been raised.

    10. It was agreed by the learned counsel appearing for the parties that if all the points of law are decided by the Bench the petitions may be finally disposed of and need not be sent back to the learned Single Judge as no question of fact requires decision. In view of the fact that the petitioners have failed on all the contentions that were raised on their behalf both the petitions must be dismissed: In the circumstances of the case, however, the parties are left to bear their own costs in this Court.

    K.L. Gosain, J.

    11. I agree.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    Prabhudayal Himatsingka And Others, v. The State Of Punjab And Others,
    (Mar 31, 1959)