PETITIONER: WORKMEN OF SHRI RANGAVILAS MOTORS (P) LTD.& ANR. Vs. RESPONDENT: SHRI RANGAVILAS MOTORS (P) LTD. AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01/02/1967 BENCH: SIKRI, S.M. BENCH: SIKRI, S.M. HIDAYATULLAH, M. VAIDYIALINGAM, C.A. CITATION: 1967 AIR 1040 1967 SCR (2) 528 ACT: Industrial Disputes Act (14 of 1947), s. 10(1) (c) and (d) proviso (1) "Affected", if means "interested"--Order of reference--Whether should state why reference was made to Labour Court-"Appropriate Government," test for deciding. HEADNOTE: The second appellant was a workman in the workshop of the first respondent dent company any in its Bangalore branch in the Mysore State. The head,office of the Company at Krishnagiri, in the Madras State, transferred him to Krishnagiri, contrary to the agreement that he would not be transferred .from Bangalore for ten years. On the workman raising objections, the Company removed him from service. The Krishnagiri Motor Workers' Union, a majority of whose members numbering more than one hundred were employees of the Company, took up the workman's grievance, and the Government of Mysore referred the industrial dispute to the Labour Court under s. 10(1) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. One of the questions referred was : whether the order of transfer was illegal and if so" Whether the workman was entitled to "reinstatement in the Bangalore branch with benefits of back wages". The Labour Court ordered the reinstatement of the workman in the Bangalore branch. The Company challenged the award by a writ petition in the High Court. The High Court while holding that the Mysore Government was the appropriate Government to make the reference, quashed the award on the grounds : (1) that the legality of the removal of the workman was not the -subject matter of reference, and (2) that the reference to the Labour Court could not be justified under s. 10(1)(c), because the dispute fell within the Third and not the Second Schedule to the Act; nor under the first proviso to s. 10(1)(d), because, the Government did not act under -that proviso, and because, more than one hundred persons were interested in and therefore likely to be affected by the dispute. In appeal to this Court, the Company sought to support the judgment of the High Court also on the ground that the Mysore -Government was not the appropriate Government to make the reference. HELD : (1) The legality of the termination of the service of the workman wag included in the order of reference. [532 D- E] The words "with benefit of back wages" coupled with the word "reinstatement" are appropriate only to a case of removal. On the facts of the case, the transfer of the workman was illegal and so, his removal from service should be set aside and be should be reinstated with benefits of 'back wages. [532 F-G] (2) The reference to the Labour Court was valid under the first proviso to s. 10(1) (d). [533 H] (a) High Court misinterpreted the proviso by equating the two ,words interested and affected. The members of the Union which sponsored the cause of the workman were interested in the dispute, but they would not necessarily be affected by the dispute. [533 F-G] 529 (b) It is not necessary that the order of reference should expressly state that it was because of the proviso that the reference was being made to the Labour Court. If it could be justified on the facts, there is nothing in the Act which makes such a reference invalid. [533 E-F] (3) The Mysore Government was the -appropriate Government to make the reference, because, the subject matter of the, dispute substantially arose within the jurisdiction of the Mysore Government. [534 H] The proper question to raise is : where did the dispute arise and not where was the dispute sponsored : that is, whether there is a nexus between the dispute and the territory of the State making the reference. Ordinarily if there is a separate establishment and the workman is working in that establishment, the dispute would arise at that place. [534 A-E] Indian Cable Co. Ltd. v. Its Workmen, [1962] Supp. 3 S.C.R. 589,followed. JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1065 of
1965.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated
February 27, 1963 of the Mysore High Court in Writ Petition
No. 1096 of 1961.
M. K. Ramamurthi, for the appellants.
O. P. Malhotra, P. C. Bhathari and O. C. Mathur, for
respondent No. 1.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Sikri, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against
the judgment of the Mysore High Court in Writ Petition No.
1096 of 1961 by which the High Court allowed the Writ
Petition and quashed the impugned award dated June 30, 1961,
made by the Labour Court, Bangalore, in Reference No. 51 of
1960. In order to appreciate the points raised before us it
is necessary to give the relevant facts.
The second appellant before us, R. Mahalingam, was engaged
as a Foreman in the workshop of Sri Rangavilas Motors (P)
Ltd., the first respondent, hereinafter referred to as the
Company, in the month of April, 1956. By an order dated
January 21, 1960, Mahalingam was transferred from Bangalore
to Krishnagiri where the head office of the Company is
situated. Mahalingam entered into correspondence with the
Company alleging that according to the conditions of his
employment he could not be transferred from Bangalore to
Krishnagiri. Ultimately, the Company framed charges against
Mahalingam and removed him from service by an order dated
April 7, 1960. On April 8, 1960, Mahalingam complained in
writing to the Assistant Commissioner of Labour who was
functioning as the Conciliation Officer at Bangalore. Later
on, one Selvaraj took part in the conciliation proceedings
on the authority of the resolution dated July 21, 1960,
passed at the General Body
530
meeting of Krishnagiri Motor Workers’ Union, among whose
members 112 out of 170 were employees of the Company.
Selvaraj filed a statement of claims before the Conciliation
Officer on September 1, 1960. The -Conciliation Officer
reported to the Government that the conciliation proceedings
had failed, and thereupon the State Government by its order
dated November 1, 1960, made in exercise of the powers
conferred by cl. (c) of sub-s. (1) of s. 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (XIV of 1947)-hereinafter
referred to as the Act-referred for adjudication by the
Labour Court, Bangalore, the following points in dispute :-
” 1. Whether the order of the management of
Sri Rangavilas Motor (Private) Ltd., in
transferring the workman Sri It. Mahalingam,
Foreman, from their branch at Fort, Bangalore,
to Krishnagiri, is illegal or unjustified. If
so, is the workman entitled to reinstatement
in Bangalore Branch with benefits of back
wages or to any other relief ?2. Is Sri R. Mahalingam, Foreman, entitled
to arrears of increments and overtime wages,
if so, what is the amount he is entitled to ?Selvaraj, inter alia, prayed in his statement of claims,
filed on behalf of Mahalingam, as follows
“…it is prayed that the Hon’ble Court may be
pleased to direct the second party (the
Company) to cause the payment of overtime
wages due, increments due (as mentioned in the
annexure to this statement) as also the
arrears of wages from 1-2-60 to 15-3-1960 and
order payment of back wages with effect from
the date of termination of service by setting
aside the said order of termination and to
reinstate the workman with continuity of
service.”The Company, in reply, contended that the reference was
limited only to the question of transfer, and hence no
question of reinstatement or back wages could be adjudicated
upon. Further, the Company contended that the reference was
bad because it did not fall under any of the items
enumerated in the Second Schedule to the -Act. It was also
contended that the dispute was an individual dispute. One
further objection was raised to the effect that the
reference should have been made to the National Tribunal and
not to the Labour Court
The Labour Court overruled all the objections regarding
jurisdiction raised by the Company and made the award
holding that both the transfer as well as the removal from
service of Mahalingam were illegal and that he Was entitled
to overtime wages as well as
531
increments. The Labour Court made the following further
direction: –“The workman Sri Mahalingam should be
reinstated in ore branch with full back
wages in continuity of the past service and
with same emoluments. The second party should
also pay the arrears of Rs. 4629/27 towards
the overtime wages and as well as the
increments due.Rs. 384”. (sic.)
As stated above, the Company filed writ petition challenging
the award. The High Court formulated the points which arose
out of the arguments addressed before it thus:-1. Whether the dispute referred by the
State Government to the Labour Court is an
industrial dispute ?2. If it is such a dispute-
(a) Whether the State Government of Mysore
was not the appropriate Government to make the
reference ? and(b) Whether the reference should have been
made by the Central Government to a National
Tribunal3. Whether any dispute relating to the
termination of the service of the fourth
respondent is included in the order of
reference ?4. Whether the points of dispute actually
referred fall within the scope of the items
enumerated in the second Schedule of the
Industrial Disputes Act and are therefore
within the competence of the Labour Court
?
5. Whether on the question of transfer
there was any dispute at all for
adjudication
On the first point the High Court, agreeing with the
Labour Court, held that on the facts what was originally an
individual grievance of Mahalingam did assume at the time
the reference was made by the Government the character of an
industrial dispute.
On the first part of the second point, the High Court held
that the State Government of Mysore was the appropriate
Government to make the reference. On the second par’ it
held that it was for the Central Government to decide to
refer or not to refer the dispute but the State Government
which is the appropriate Government in relation to the
dispute does not lose its power of -making ‘a reference.
On the third point the High Court held that the question of
legality or otherwise of the Company’s action in removing
Mahalingam from service was not the subject-matter of
reference to the M2 Sup. CI/67-5
532
Labour Court and its award to the extent it dealt with that
topic was without jurisdiction.
On the fourth point, the-High Court held that the first
proviso to cl.'(d) to s. 10 (1) of the Act did not apply and
that the dispute relating to increments and overtime wages
was beyond the jurisdiction of the Labour ‘Court and could
not have been validly referred to it. It also held that the
dispute regarding transfer was included in the expression
“rules of discipline” enumerated as item 8 of the Third
Schedule, and was therefore pot within the, competence of
the Labour Court to adjudicate upon
in view of these findings the Award was quashed. Regarding
point No. 5 formulated by it, the High Court observed that
it was. unnecessary to examine that point, but as the matter
had been, argued at some length, the High Court stated its
opinion thereon. In its opinion, there was no scope far
making the order of transfer the subject-matter of any
dispute.
The same points that were formulated by the High Court
were-. argued before us. Mr. Ramamurti, appearing on behalf
of the appellants, urged regarding point No. 3 that on its
true interpretation the order of reference was quite clear
and that the question of termination of services of
Mahalingam was included in the order of reference. We have
already reproduced the order of reference and, in our
opinion, there is force in what Mr. Ramamurti urges It seems
to us that the order of reference is quite clear if regard
is: had to the words “reinstatement in Bangalore branch with
benefits of back wages.” If the words with benefits of back
wages” considered,and with respect,the High Court did not
consider them, the High Court’s conclusion might possibly be
justified. It seems to us that by the time the reference
tame to be made everybody knew that Mahalingam had been
removed from service. The words “with benefits of back
wages” coup led with the word “reinstatement” are
appropriate only to a case of removal and not to a case of
transfer. On the facts of this case it is quite clear that
the contention of Mahalingam was that the transfer was
illegal and if the transfer as illegal, his removal from
service would fall automatically with the finding that the
transfer was illegal, and one of the appropriate reliefs
that would be given would be reinstatement in the Bangalore
Branch with benefits of back wales. In our view it is
because of the above considerations that the word “removal”
was not expressly mentioned. In this connection the High
Court relied on the provisions of s. 10(4) of the Act which
reads as under
“10(4) Where in an order referring an
industrial dispute to a Labour Court, Tribunal
or National Tribunal under this section or in
a subsequent order, the appropriate Government
has specified the ‘points of dispute for
adjudication, the Labour Court or the Tribunal
or the National
533
Tribunal, as the case may be, shall confine
its adjudication to those points and matters
inidental thereto.”
We are unable to appreciate how this sub-section has any re-
levance to the question of construction of the order of
reference made by the Government. It is true that he points
in dispute must be specified, but the point with which we
are concerned is, whether as a matter of construction the
point in dispute has been specified or not, and according to
us the dispute regarding removal has been specified.
Regarding the fourth point, with respect, the High Court
misinterpreted the first proviso to cl. (d) to s.”10(1).
This proviso reads as follows
“Provided that where the dispute relates to
any matter specified in the Third Schedule and
is not likely to affect more than one hundred
workmen, the appropriate Government may, if it
so thinks fit, make the reference to a Labour
Court under clause (c)
The High Court negative the, plea of Mahalingam on two
grounds: First that there is nothing either -in the order of
reference. or in any, other material placed before it to
indicate that the Government have applied their mind to the
applicability of the proviso to the facts of this case or
have actually acted pursuant to the proviso in making the
references to the Labour Court and secondly, that there can
be no doubt that more than one hundred. per sons are
interested in, and are therefore likely to be affected by
the dispute in question. In our view it is not necessary
that the order of reference should expressly state that it
is because of the proviso that a reference is, being made to
the Labour Court, and if the reference can be justified on
the facts, there is nothing in the Act which makes such a
reference invalid. The second reason given by the High
Court, with respect is erroneous because it seems to have
equated, the words “interested’ and “,affected”. It would
be noticed that s. 10(1A) uses both the words “interested”
or “affected”. Section 10(5) also uses both the words
“interested” or “affected”. It seems to us that there is a
difference in the import of the words ” interested” or,
“affected”. The Union which sponsors the cause of an
individual workman is interested in the dispute but the
workmen who are the members of the Union are not necessarily
affected by the dispute. The dispute in this case was
regarding the validity of the transfer and consequent
removal of the appellant. The other workmen would naturally
be interested in the dispute but they are not affected by
this dispute. In our opinion, the High Court erred in
holding that the first proviso to s. 10(1)(d) did not apply
to the facts of this case. In view of our decision on this
point, it is not necessary to go into the question whether
the points in dispute fell within the second or the third
Schedule to the Act.
534
Therefore, the appeal must succeed unless the Company can
satisfy us that the points decided against it should have
been decided in its favour. This takes us to the other
points. Mr. O. P. Malhotra strongly urges that the State
Government of Mysore was not the appropriate Government to
make the reference. He .says that although the dispute
started at Bangalore, the resolution sponsoring this dispute
was passed in Krishnagiri, and,, that- the proper test to be
applied in the case of individual disputes is where the
dispute has been sponsored. It seems to us that on the
facts of this case it is clear that there was a separate
establishment at ‘Bangalore and Mahalingam was working
there. There were a number of other workmen working in this
place. The order of transfer, it is true, was made in
Krishnagiri at the head office, but the order was to operate
on a workman working in Bangalore. In our view the High
Court was right in holding that the proper question to raise
is : Where did the dispute arise ? Ordinarily, if there is
a separate establishment and the workman is working in that
establishment, the dispute would arise at that place. As
the High Court observed, there should clearly be ‘some
-nexus between the dispute and the territory of the State
and not necessarily between the territory of the State and
the industry concerning which the dispute arose. This Court
in- Indian Cable Co. Ltd. v. Its Workmen(1) held as
follows:
“The Act contained no provisions bearing on
this question, which must, consequently, be
decided on the principles governing the
jurisdiction of Courts to entertain actions or
proceedings. Dealing with a similar question
under the provisions of the Bombay Industrial
Relations Act, 1946, Chagla, C. J., observed
in Lalbhai Tricumlal Mills Ltd. v. Vin and
Others [1956] 1 L.L.J. 557, 558
‘But What we are concerned with to decide is:
where did the dispute substantially arise ?
Now, the Act does not deal with the cause of
action, nor does it indicate what factors will
confer jurisdiction upon the labour court.
But applying the well-known tests of
jurisdiction, a Court, or Tribunal would have
jurisdiction if the parties reside within
jurisdiction or if the -subject-matter of the
dispute substantially arises within
jurisdiction.’
In our opinion, those principles are
applicable for deciding which of the States
has jurisdiction to make a reference under s.
10 of the Act”.
Applying the above principles to the facts of this case it
is quite. -clear that the subject-matter of the dispute in
this case substantially -arose within the jurisdiction of
the Mysore Government.
(1) [1962] Supp. 3 S.C.R. 589 : [1962] 1 L.L.J. 409.
535
Mr. Malhotra further urges that the High Court erred in
holding that it was an industrial dispute. We see no force
in this contention. The High Court rightly observed that
once the findings of fact recorded by the Labour; Court are
accepted, there is no doubt in law that in the circumstances
of this case, what was originally an individual grievance of
Mahalingam did assume, at the time the reference was made by
the Government, the character of an industrial dispute.
Mr. Malhotra urges that the finding of the Labour Court
that the transfer was illegal was perverse. It is not
necessary to go into this question because once it is held
that there is an agreement between the Company and
Mahalingam that he could not be transferred from Bangalore,
the transfer would be bad. The Labour Court had observed
that one of the terms of agreement was that the Company had
agreed not to transfer Mahalingam to any place out of
Bangalore, for a period of ten years; the Company had
transferred Mahalingam from Bangalore to the head office at
Krishnagiri and this action of the Company was in
contravention of the terms of the agreement.
Then Mr. Malhotra tried to urge the fifth point formulated
by the High Court. This point was not taken before the
Labour Court and we did not allow him to raise this point.’
In the result the appeal is allowed, judgment of the High
Court set aside and the Award of the Labour Court restored.
The appellant will have his costs here and in the High
Court.
V.P.S.
Appeal allowed
536