PETITIONER: VISHWAMITRA PRESS KARYALAYA Vs. RESPONDENT: THE WORKERS OF VISHWAMITRA PRESS.THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH- DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02/12/1952 BENCH: BHAGWATI, NATWARLAL H. BENCH: BHAGWATI, NATWARLAL H. MAHAJAN, MEHR CHAND DAS, SUDHI RANJAN CITATION: 1953 AIR 41 1953 SCR 272 ACT: U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, ss. 3, 4-U. P. General Clauses Act, 1904, s. 10-Industrial Tribunal, whether a " Court " Period fixed for making award expiring on holiday-Award pronounced on next working day-Validity of award. HEADNOTE: The time prescribed for making an award under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, expired on the 9th June, 1951. The Government extended the period up to 30th June, 1951. The 30th June was a public holiday and 1st July was a Sunday and the Industrial Tribunal pronounced its award on the 2nd July: Held, that an Industrial Tribunal to which a dispute is referred under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is a " Court " within the meaning of s. 10 of the U.P. General Clauses Act, 1904, and, as the 30th June and 1st July were holidays, the award pronounced on the 2nd July was not invalid on the ground that it was not pronounced within the period fixed. 273 JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 65 of 1952.
Appeal from an award dated 17th November, 1951, made by the
Labour Appellate Tribunal of India, Calcutta, in Appeal -No.
Cal. 280 of 1951.
K. P. Khaitan (Harnam Das, with him) for the appellant.
H. B. Asthana for the respondents.
Gopalji Mehrotra for the Intervener.
1952. December 2. The Judgment of the Court was delivered
by
BHAGWATI J.-This is an appeal by special leave against
the decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta,
upholding the award made by the State Industrial Tribunal,
Uttar Pradesh, with certain modifications.
An industrial dispute arose between the appellant, the
Vishwamitra Press Karyalaya, Kanpur, and the respondents,
the workers of the Vishwamitra Press as represented by the
Kanpur Samachar Patra Karamchari Union, Kanpur, in regard to
the alleged victimisation of certain workmen under the guise
of ‘retrenchment. That industrial dispute was referred to
the Industrial Tribunal, by a notification dated the 24th
April, 1951. The time for making the award expired on the
9th June, 1951, and on the 9th June. 1951, a further
notification was issued extending the time for making the
award up to the 30th June, 1951. The 30th June, 1951, was a
public holiday and the 1st July was a Sunday. The
Industrial Tribunal made its award on the 2nd July, 1951,
and pronounced it in open court on that day. It was however
thought by the Uttar Pradesh Government that the award was
beyond time and invalid and on the 18th July, 1951, a
notification was issued extending the period up to the 3rd
July, 1951. This award was challenged by the appellant
before the Labour Appellate Tribunal. The Labour Appellate.
Tribunal negatived the Contentions of the appellant. The
appellat applied
274
for special leave which was granted by this Court on the
21st December, 1951, limited to the following
grounds:
” (1) The Government had no power to extend the time of
the making of award after the expiry of the time originally
fixed, and the award made by the Adjudicator after such time
is illegal, ultra vires, inoperative and void.
(2)In any case the State Government I had extended the
time for making the award till 30th June, 1951, and the
Adjudicator’s award made after that
date is void.
(3)That the extension of time by the Government on. 21st
July, 1951, after even the time extended previously had
expired, was ultra vires, and it could not make a void award
a valid award.”
The industrial dispute which arose between the appellant
and the respondents was referred by the Uttar Pradesh
Government to the Industrial Tribunal in exercise of the
powers conferred by sections 3 and 4 of the Uttar Pradesh
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Uttar Pradesh Government
had in exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 (d) of
the Act promulgated an order inter alia providing for the
adjudication of the industrial disputes referred by it to
the Industrial Tribunals. Paragraph 16 of that order ran as
under :-
” The Tribunal or the Adjudicator shall hear the dispute
and pronounce its decision within 40 days (excluding
holidays observed by courts subordinate to the High Court)
from the date of reference made to it by the State
Government, and shall thereafter as soon as possible supply
a copy of the same to the parties to the dispute, and to
such other persons or bodies as the State Government may in
writing direct.
Provided that the State Government may extend the said
period from time to time.”
Paragraph 9 which prescribed the powers and functions of
Tribunals inter alia provided:-
275
“(9). The decision shall be in writing, and shall be
pronounced in open court and dated and signed by the member
or members of the Tribunal, as the case may be, at the time
of pronouncing it.”
It was not disputed before us that the original period
calculated in accordance with paragraph 16 above expired on
the 9th June, 1951, and the Uttar Pradesh Government validly
extended the period up to the 30th June, 1951. It was
however contended that the Industrial Tribunal should have
made its award on the 30th June, 1951, and not on the 2nd
July, 1951, as it purported to do. It was urged that the
provision as to excluding holidays observed by courts
subordinate to the High Court which obtained in paragraph 16
above did not apply when the period was extended up to a
particular date. It would apply only if the period was
extended by a particular number of days when for the purpose
of the computation of those days the holidays would have to
be excluded in the manner therein mentioned. The Uttar
Pradesh Government having extended the period up to the,
30th June, 1951, it was submitted that the award, should
have been made by the 30th June, 1951, and, not later and
having been made on the 2nd July, 1951, was therefore beyond
time and invalid.
This argument might well have prevailed but for the
provisions of section 10 of the U. P. General Clauses Act,
1904. That section provides:-
” Where, by any United Provinces Act, any act or
proceeding is directed or allowed to be done or taken in any
court or office on a certain day or within a prescribed
period, then, if the court or office is closed; on that day
or the last day of the prescribed period, the act or
proceeding shall be considered as done or taken in due time
if it is done or taken on the next day afterwards on which
the court or office is open.”
The Industrial Court was closed on the 30th June, 1951,
which was declared a public holiday. The 1st July, 1951,
was a Sunday and it was competent to the ‘Industrial Court
to pronounce its decision on the next
276
afterwards on which the Industrial Court was n, i.e., the
2nd July, 1951. Prima facie therefore award which was
pronounced on the 2nd July, 1, was well within time.
The only thing which Shri Khaitan counsel for the
appellant urged before us therefore was that the Industrial
Court was not a court within the meaning of section 10 of
the U. P. General Clauses Act, “The court” according to his
submission could only be construed mean a court in the
hierarchy of the civil courts the State and an Industrial
Court did not fall hin that category. We are unable to
accept this intention of Shri Khaitan. The Uttar Pradesh
industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was an Uttar Pradesh t. The
General Order dated the 15th March, 1951, which provided
inter alia for the reference of the industrial dispute for
adjudication and the manner in which it was to be
adjudicated, was promulgated by e U. P. Government in
exercise of the powers conferred upon it by section 3 (d) of
the Act. Paragraph (9) of the General Order provided for
the decision ing pronounced by the Industrial Tribunal in
open urt and we fail to understand how it could ever be
ged that the Industrial Tribunal was not a court ithin the
meaning of section 10 of the U. P. General lauses Act. If
the Industrial Tribunal was thus a ourt within the meaning
of section 10 of the U. P. General Clauses Act the court was
closed on the 30th ane, 1951, as also on the 1st July, 1951,
and the decion could be pronounced by the Industrial Court
on i.e next day afterwards on which it was open, i.e., on ne
2nd July, 1951. In our opinion therefore the ecision which
was pronounced on the 2na July, 951, ‘was well within time
and was valid and binding’ in the parties.
The above decision is determinative of this appeal, and
the appeal will therefore stand dismissed with costs.
Appeal dismissed.
Agent for the appellant: B. P. Maheshwari.
Agent for the respondents and the intervener:
C. P. Lal.
277