- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Sohan Singh And Others v. General Manager, Ordnance Factory, Khamaria, Jabalpur And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellants filed seven applications before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 seeking quantification of certain monetary claims. The Labour Court allowed the applications and issued directions for quantification. The respondents challenged that decision in Miscellaneous Petition No. 280 of 1970 before the Madhya Pradesh High Court. Without examining the merits, the High Court set aside the Labour Court’s order on the ground that the applications under Section 33-C(2) were not maintainable. The present appeal, brought to the Supreme Court by certificate under Article 133(1)(a) of the Constitution (pre-30th Amendment), questions the correctness of the High Court’s approach.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the High Court erred in holding that the Labour Court lacked competence to entertain and decide the applications filed under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
- Whether the respondents, having submitted to the Labour Court’s jurisdiction and participated in the trial of Issue 4, could later challenge that jurisdiction for the first time before the High Court.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants' Arguments
- The respondents never questioned the Labour Court’s jurisdiction during the proceedings; by fully participating in the trial—particularly on Issue 4—they submitted to its authority.
- Jurisdictional objections raised for the first time before the High Court were therefore impermissible, and the High Court should have decided the writ petition on the merits.
Respondents' Arguments
- The Labour Court was not competent to try Issue 4, which concerned whether the appellants had accepted altered service conditions and reduced pay upon transfer to the Ordnance Factory at Khamaria. Consequently, the entire proceeding under Section 33-C(2) was misconceived.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court noted that Issue 4—“Whether the applicants were transferred to Ordnance Factory, Khamaria on the same terms and conditions of service … and they willingly accepted the reduced pay and a new assignment”—had been expressly framed and tried by the Labour Court without objection. The respondents fully participated in that trial. By doing so, they submitted to the Labour Court’s jurisdiction.
The Court reasoned that a party cannot, after participating in proceedings and suffering an adverse decision, turn around and challenge the tribunal’s jurisdiction for the first time in a higher forum. Therefore, the High Court ought not to have entertained the jurisdictional objection or annulled the Labour Court’s order solely on that basis.
Holding and Implications
Appeal Allowed; High Court order set aside; case remitted to the High Court for rehearing on the merits.
Immediate Effect: The writ petition is restored to the High Court, which must now examine the merits of the Labour Court’s decision. Each party will bear its own costs. No new substantive precedent was set, but the judgment reiterates the principle that jurisdictional objections cannot be introduced for the first time after full participation in a tribunal’s proceedings.
N.L Untwalia, J.— This is an appeal by certificate under Article 133(1)(a) of the Constitution as it stood before the Thirtieth Constitution (Amendment) Act from the order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court passed in Miscellaneous Petition No. 280 of 1970 filed by the respondents. The appellants had filed seven applications before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The applications were allowed and certain directions were given by the Labour Court for quantification of the claims of the appellants. The High Court in the writ petition filed by the respondents has not examined the merits of the order of the Labour Court. It has set aside that order on the ground that on the facts and circumstances of this case the applications under Section 33-C(2) were not entertainable by the Labour Court. We think that the view taken by the High Court on the facts of this case is not correct because the jurisdiction of the Labour Court was not challenged by the respondents in that Court. Issue 4 settled for trial by the Labour Court was in the following terms:
“Whether the applicants were transferred to Ordnance Factory, Khamaria on same terms and conditions of service which they had at Meerut and they willingly accepted the reduced pay and a new-assignment in Khamaria Ordnance?”
The High Court seems to have taken the view that the trial of such an issue was beyond the competence of the Labour Court; but it has rightly been pointed out on behalf of the appellants that instead of challenging the competence or the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to try Issue 4, the respondents went to trial, submitted to its jurisdiction and when a decision was given against them by the Labour Court, they, for the first time, challenged its jurisdiction to try that issue in the High Court. On the facts of this case, therefore, we are satisfied that the High Court ought not to have entertained the point of jurisdiction urged on behalf of the respondents and set aside the order of the Labour Court on that ground alone.
2. We therefore allow this appeal, set aside the order of the High Court, remit the case back to it with a direction to rehear the miscellaneous petition on merits and dispose it of according to law. There will be no order as to costs.
Alert