{"id":151473,"date":"1962-02-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1962-02-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-lakshmi-ice-factory-others-on-7-february-1962"},"modified":"2018-07-11T14:22:01","modified_gmt":"2018-07-11T08:52:01","slug":"state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-lakshmi-ice-factory-others-on-7-february-1962","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-lakshmi-ice-factory-others-on-7-february-1962","title":{"rendered":"State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Lakshmi Ice Factory & Others on 7 February, 1962"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Lakshmi Ice Factory & Others on 7 February, 1962<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1963 AIR 399, \t\t 1962 SCR Supl. (3) 59<\/div>\n
Author: A Sarkar<\/div>\n
Bench: Sarkar, A.K.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nLAKSHMI ICE FACTORY & OTHERS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n07\/02\/1962\n\nBENCH:\nSARKAR, A.K.\nBENCH:\nSARKAR, A.K.\nGAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B.\nWANCHOO, K.N.\n\nCITATION:\n 1963 AIR  399\t\t  1962 SCR  Supl. (3)  59\n CITATOR INFO :\n RF\t    1992 SC1277\t (22)\n\n\nACT:\nIndustrial  Dispute-Award-Pronouncement of in open  court-If\nimperative-United  Provinces industrial Disputes  Act,\t1947\n(U. P. 28 of 1947, ss. 3, 6-Statutory Orders cl. 9 (7).\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  Government\t of  Uttar Pradesh under s. 3  of  the\tU.P.\nIndustrial  Disputes  Act, 1947, and  the  Statutory  orders\nframed\tthereunder  referred certain. disputes\tbetween\t the\nrespondent  Ice Factories and the respective workmen  to  an\nIndustrial  Tribunal.\tThe Tribunal heard the\tmatters\t but\nfailed\tto  pronounce its award in open court,\tas  required\nunder the clause 9 (7) of the Statutory Orders.\t Instead the\nRegistrar  of the Tribunal informed the Ice  Factories\tthat\nthe  award  of\tthe  Tribunal  had  been  submitted  to\t the\nGovernment.  The award was published in the U.P. Gazette and\nthe  Regional  Conciliation  officer  called  upon  the\t Ice\nFactories  to  implement  the award  immediately.   The\t Ice\nFactories  moved the High Court at Allahabad  alleging\tthat\nthe  award  was a nullity as it had not been  pronounced  in\nopen  court  as\t required  under the clause  9\t(7)  of\t the\nStatutory  Orders  and asking for writs to quash  it.\tHigh\nCourt issued the writs quashing the Notification  publishing\nthe award.  The questions are whether the provisions of sub-\ncl.  (7) of cl. 9 of the Statutory Orders are imperative  or\nmerely directory and whether that sub-clause is ultra  vires\nas  being in conflict with the Act under which it  had\tbeen\nframed.\nHeld, that the clear intention of the legislature is to make\nit  imperative that judgments should be pronounced  in\topen\ncourt by the Tribunal and a judgment not so pronounced would\ntherefore be a nullity.\t The provision in sub-cl.(7) of\t cl.\n9 of the Statutory Order is imperative and not directory.\nHeld,  further, that the provisions as to the  pronouncement\nof the decision in open court contained in cl. 9 (7) of\t the\nStatutory  Order was clearly within the powers\tcontemplated\nin s. 3 (g) of the Act and s. 6 of the Act does not prohibit\nthe making of such provisions.\tA rule duly framed under the\nAct requiring the Tribunal to pronounce its decision in open\ncourt is therefore not in conflict with s. 6 of the Act.\nMontreal Street Railway Co. v. Normandin, [1917] A. C.\t170,\nreferred to.\n60\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals  Nos.  51\t and
\n52\/61<\/span>
\nAppeals\t from  the judgment and decree dated  September\t 23,
\n1959, of the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) at Lucknow
\nin  C. M. Applications Nos. 15 (O.J.) and 16 (O.J.) of\t1957
\nrespectively.\n<\/p>\n
C.   B. Agarwala and C. P. Lal, for the Appellants (in both  the
\nappeals).\n<\/p>\n
A.   V.\t Viswanatha Sastri, and K. L. Arora, for  Respondent
\nNo. 1 (in both the appeals).\n<\/p>\n
1962.\tFebruary 7. The Judgment of the Court was  delivered
\nby
\nSARKAR, J.- These two appeals have been heard together. The,
\nappellants in each case are the State of Uttar Pradesh,\t for
\nshort  called  U.  P.  and some\t of  its  officers  and\t the
\nrespondents  in\t one  appeal are  Lakshmi  Ice\tFactory\t and
\ncertain\t of  its workers and in the other  the\tPrakash\t Ice
\nFactory and certain of its workers.  These appeals involve a
\nquestion of construction of certain provisions of the U.  P.
\nIndustrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereafter referred to as\t the
\nAct.\n<\/p>\n
By   a\tNotification  issued  on  February  10,\t 1956,\t the
\nGovernment  of\tU. P. referred certain\tdisputes  which\t had
\ncropped\t up  between  each  of the  Ice\t Factories  and\t its
\nrespective   workmen,\tto  an\t Industrial   Tribunal\t for
\nadjudication.\tThe  details  of  these\t disputes  are\t not
\nmaterial for these appeals.  The Tribunal heard the  matters
\nbut  failed to pronounce its award in open court.   Instead,
\non November 8, 1956, the Registrar of the Tribunal  informed
\nthe  Ice Factories that the award of the Tribunal  had\tbeen
\nsubmitted  to  the Government.\tOn December, 15,  1956,\t the
\naward  was  published in the U. P. Gazette and\tit  appeared
\nfrom  this publication that the award was dated November  8,
\n1956.  On December 26, 1956, the Regional Conciliation Offi-
\ncer appointed under the Act ” called upon the Ice
\n61<\/span>
\nFactories to implement the award immediately.  Thereupon the
\nTee  Factories moved the High Court at Allahabad on  January
\n3,  1957  under\t Art.  226 of  the  Constitution  for  writs
\nquashing  the award and prohibiting the Government  and\t the
\nworkmen\t from taking steps to implement it.  They  contended
\nthat the award sought to be enforced was a nullity as it had
\nnot  been  pronounced in open court as required\t by  certain
\nrules  to  which  reference will presently be  made.   By  a
\njudgment  passed  on  September 23,  1959,  the\t High  Court
\nallowed the petitions of the Ice Factories and issued  writs
\nquashing the Notification publishing the award.\t The appeals
\nare against this judgment of the High Court.
\nSection\t 3 of the Act gives the Government power in  certain
\ncircumstances  to  make provisions by  general,\t or  special
\norder\t(1)  for  appointing  Industrial  courts,  (2)\t for
\nreferring  any\tindustrial dispute for adjudication  in\t the
\nmanner provided in the order and (3) for matters  incidental
\nor  supplementary  to  the other provisions  of\t the  order.
\nUnder  this power the Government had issued an\tOrder  dated
\nJuly  14,  1954\t and  this Order  is  hereafter\t called\t the
\n“Statutory Order.” It was under powers conferred by the\t Act
\nread with the Statutory Order that the Government had issued
\nthe Notification of February 10, 1956.\n<\/p>\n
In  exercise of powers conferred by el. 8 of  the  Statutory
\nOrder  the Government had set up the Tribunal.\tClause 9  of
\nthe  Statutory\tOrder  provides\t for  the  procedure  to  be
\nfollowed by the Tribunal.  Sub-clause (7) of this clause  is
\nin  these terms: “The decision of the Tribunal shall  be  in
\nwriting and shall be pronounced in open court and dated\t and
\nsigned by the member or members of the Tribunal, as the case
\nmay  be,  at the time of pronouncing it.” Clause 11  of\t the
\nStatutory  Order  gives\t power to Government  to  refer\t any
\nindustrial dispute to the Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n
Sub-clause (9) of el. 9 of the Statutory Order
\n62<\/span>
\ngives power to the Tribunal to make Standing Orders relating
\nto  its practice and procedure.\t Under this  sub-clause\t the
\nTribunal framed certain Standing Orders.  Standing Order No.
\n36  provided.  “Judgment shall be pronounced in\t open  court
\neither immediately after the close of the arguments or on  a
\nsubsequent  date of which previous notice shall be given  to
\nthe  parties.\tIt  shall then be signed and  dated  by\t the
\nTribunal.”\n<\/p>\n
Acting presumably under Standing Order No. 36, the  Tribunal
\nin  the\t present  case bad fixed a date on  which  it  would
\npronounce  its judgment in open court.\tThis date  does\t not
\nappear on the record but on September 25, 1956, the Tribunal
\ninformed the parties that the date for pronouncing the award
\nhad been changed to October 9, 1956.  On that date, however,
\nthe  award  was not pronounced in open court,  nor  was\t any
\nintimation of any other date for its pronouncement given  to
\nthe  parties.  The lee Factories first came to know  of\t the
\nmaking of the award from the letter of the Registrar of\t the
\nTribunal  dated\t November 8, 1956 earlier referred  to.\t The
\naward had in fact never been pronounced in open court.
\nThe first question is whether the provisions in sub el.\t (7)
\nof el. 9 are imperative.  The High Court held that they were
\nand thereupon quashed the Notification publishing the award.
\nThe appellants contend that the High Court was in error\t and
\nthat the provisions are only directory and that the  failure
\nof the Tribunal to pronounce the award in open Court did not
\nresult\tin  the\t award becoming\t void.\t The  Ice  Factories
\ncontend for the contract view.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. Aggarwala for the appellants referred us to the rule  of
\nconstruction   stated  in  Maxwell  on\t Interpretation\t  of
\nStatutes, 10th ed. at p. 381, which is as follows :  “,Where
\nthe prescriptions of a statute relate to the performance  of
\na public duty and
\n63<\/span>
\nwhere  the  invalidation of acts done in  neglect  of  them,
\nwould  work  serious general inconvenience or  injustice  to
\npersons\t who have no control over those entrusted  with\t the
\nduty   without\t promoting  the\t essential   aims   of\t the
\nLegislature,   such  prescriptions  seem  to  be   generally
\nunderstood  as\tmere  instructions  for\t the  guidance\t and
\ngovernment  of\tthose on whom the duty is  imposed,  or,  in
\nother  words as ‘directory only”.  Ho said that sub el.\t (7)
\nof cl. 9 of the Statutory Order imposed a public duty on the
\nTribunal  and  as  none of the\tcontesting  parties  to\t the
\nproceedings before the Tribunal had any control over it, the
\nprovision  in the Statutory Order as to how the Tribunal  is
\nto  discharge its duty must be regarded as merely  directory
\nand therefore a disregard of that provision by the  Tribunal
\nwould not render the thing done by it a nullity.
\nIt  seems  to  us that the rule read  from  Maxwell  is\t not
\napplicable  to this case.  It applies only when to hold\t the
\nprescriptions in a statute as to the performance of a public
\nduty  to  be imperative would work  injustice  and  hardship
\nwithout\t serving the object of the statute.  None  of  these
\nconditions  are present ill the statute now before us.\t The
\nrule may be illustrated by reference to the case of Montreal
\nStreet\tRailway\t Co.  v.  Normandin(1)\twhich  is  cited  in
\nMaxwell’s  book. That was a case in which certain  Statutory
\nprovisions as to how the jury list was to be revised had not
\nbeen followed and the question arose whether the verdict  of
\na jury empannelled out of a list revised in disregard of the
\nprovision  was a nullity.  It was hold that the verdict\t was
\nnot a nullity as the provision regarding the revision of the
\njury  list was merely directory.  It was further  held\tthat
\nthe object of the provision was to distribute the burden  of
\njury  equally between all liable to it, to secure  effective
\njurors likely to attend and lastly to prevent packing of the
\njury.\tIt  was said that “It does far less  harm  to  allow
\ncases tried by a jury formed as this one was
\n(1)  [1917] A.\tC. 170.\n<\/p>\n
64<\/span><\/p>\n
with  the  opportunities  there\t would\tbe  object  to\t any
\nunqualified man called into the box, to stand good, than  to
\nhold  the proceedings null and void.  So to hold would\tnot,
\nof course, prevent, the courts granting new trials in  cases
\nwhere there was reason think that a fair trial had not\tbeen
\nhad”: P. 176).\n<\/p>\n
The case in hand is wholly different.  The proceedings\tthat
\nwere had before the Tribunal would not become null and void
\nif   we\t hold  el.  9(7)  of  the  Statutory  Order  to\t  be
\nimperative,.  A view that the provision was imperative would
\ncause  no serious hardship to any one.\tThe  Government\t can
\nalways\trequire the Tribunal to pronounce, its\tdecision  in
\nopen court extending, if necessary for the purpose. he\ttime
\nfixed  for  giving  its\t decision.   Either  party  of\t the
\nproceeding  can\t also ask the Government to  call  upon\t the
\nTribunal to pronounce its award in open court.\tThere is no
\ndoubt  that  the Government will go call upon  the  Tribunal
\nwhen the defect s brought to its ‘notice for the  Government
\nitself referred the matter to the Tribunal for if  decision.
\nAs soon as the Tribunal pronounces it,; award in open court,
\nthe proceedings will become fully effective.
\nIt is also an accepted rule of construction that  enactments
\nregulating the procedure in courts are usually imperative  :
\nMaxwell\t on Interpretation of statues 10th ed. p.  379.\t  It
\nfurther\t appears  to us that the object of  the\t legislature
\nwould be defeated by reading cl. 9(7) of the Statutory Order
\nas containing a provision which is merely director v. We now
\nproceed to ascertain that object from the, other  provisions
\nin the Statutory Order, the Act and connected legislation.
\nSection 6 of the IT.  P. Act provides as follows :–\n<\/p>\n
\t      (1)   When an authority to which an industrial
\n\t      dispute has been referred for
\n\t      65<\/span>
\n\t      adjudication  has completed it,%\tenquiry,  it
\n\t      shall, within such time as may be\t ,specified,
\n\t      submit its award to the State Government.
\n\t      (2) The State Government may…… enforce for
\n\t      such  period as it may specify all or  any  of
\n\t      the decisions in the award.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It  was under this section that the Tribunal submitted\tit,%
\naward  to  the\tGovernment and\tthe  Government\t issued\t the
\nNotification in the Gazette dated December 15, 1956  earlier
\nmentioned  and\tdirected that the award be  enforced  for  a
\nperiod of one year from the date of the publication.
\nSince the award has to be submitted to the Government by the
\nTribunal  under\t s.  6 of the Act, the award has  to  be  in
\nwriting, for a verbal award cannot obviously be submitted to
\nthe   Government.   It\twould  therefore  appear  that\t the
\nprovision  in sub cle. (7) of el. 9 of the  Statutory  Order
\nthat  the  decision of the Tribunal shall be in\t writing  is
\nimperative,  This  would  be an indication  that  the  other
\nprovisions  in\tthe same sub-clause connected with  it\twere
\nintended to be equally imperative.\n<\/p>\n
Then we find that el. 18 of the Statutory Order is in  these
\nterms  :  “The Tribunal or the adjudicator  shall  hear\t the
\ndispute\t and  give  its\t or his\t decision  within  180\tdays
\n(excluding  holidays  but Dot annual vacations\tobserved  by
\ncourts\tsubordinate  to\t the High Court) from  the  date  of
\nreference  made\t to it or him by the  State  Government\t and
\nshall  thereafter as soon as possible, supply a copy of\t the
\nsame to the parties to the dispute…………….  Provided
\nthat  the State Government may extend the said\tperiod\tfrom
\ntime  to  time.” It seems to us that the provision  in\tthis
\nclause\tin clearly mandatory.  The Tribunal has no power  to
\nmake an award after the time mentioned in it; if it had, the
\nproviso\t to el. 18 would be wholly unnecessary.\t The  result
\ntherefore is that it is
\n66<\/span>
\nobligatory  on the Tribunal to give its decision within\t 180
\ndays from the date of the reference.  A decision given, that
\nis  an\taward made, beyond this period would be\t a  nullity.
\nNow when cl. 18 talks of giving a decision, it can only mean
\ngiving it in the manner indicated in sub-cl, (7) of cl. 9 of
\nthe  Statutory\tOrder, that is, by pronouncing\tit  in\topen
\ncourt,\tfor  that is the only manner of\t giving\t a  decision
\nwhich  that  order contemplates.  It would follow  that\t the
\nterms  of  cl. 9(7) were imperative, for  otherwise  no\t one
\nwould  know  whether the terms of el. 18  of  the  Statutory
\nOrder  had been complied with, that is to say, no one  would
\nknow  whether the award was void or not.  The provisions  of
\ncl.  IS may thus be rendered nugatory by holding el. 9(7) to
\nbe  only  directory.   It  would  follow  that\tunless\t the
\nprovision as to the pronouncement of the award in open court
\nwas mandatory, the intention of the framers of the Statutory
\nOrder would be defeated.\n<\/p>\n
Sub-clause  (2) of cl. 24 of the Statutory Order also  leads
\nto the same conclusion.\t That sub-clause is in these terms :
\n“Clerical  or arithmetical mistakes in decisions or  awards,
\nor errors arising therein from any accidental slip or  omis-
\nsion  may, within one month of giving the decision or  award
\nbe  corrected by the Tribunal or the adjudicator, either  of
\nits  or his own motion or on the application of any  of\t the
\nparties.” Under this rule therefore clerical or arithmetical
\nerrors\tor  slips may be corrected within one month  of\t the
\ngiving\tof  the decision and the parties have the  right  to
\napply  for such corrections within that time.  The  Tribunal
\nhas no right to correct an error beyond that time.  Nor\t has
\na  party  a right to move the Tribunal for making  any\tsuch
\ncorrections after the time has expired.\n<\/p>\n
In  order  that the intention of cl. 24 (2)  may  be,  given
\neffect to, it is necessary that the date of the
\n 67<\/span>
\ngiving of the decision should be known.\t It cannot  promptly
\nbe  known to the parties unless the award is  pronounced  in
\nopen  court.   If  any other Manner of\tthe  giving  of\t the
\ndecision  was permissible as would be the result if  it\t was
\nnot obligatory to pronounce the decision in open court, then
\na  party may be deprived of its right under cl. 24  to\tmove
\nthe  Tribunal  for  correction of errors.  It  is  for\tthis
\nreason\tthat  cl. 9(7) provides that the decision  shall  be
\ndated  and  signed  at the time of pronouncing\tit  in\topen
\ncourt.\t This  signing\tand dating of the  award  after\t its
\npronouncement in open court makes it possible to see whether
\nthe terms of  cls. 18 and 24 (2) have been complied with  in
\nany case.\n<\/p>\n
The   third   thing  which  to\tour  mind   indicates\tthat
\npronouncement  in open court is essential is cl. 31 of\tthe
\nStatutory Order.  That clause is in these terms : “Except as
\nprovided  in  this  Order and  in  the\tIndustrial  Disputes
\n(Appellate   Tribunal)\tAct,  1950,  every  order  made\t  or
\ndirection issued under the provisions of this Order shall be
\nfinal  and  conclusive and shall not be\t questioned  by\t any
\nparty  thereto in any proceedings.” The Industrial  Disputes
\n(Appellate  Tribunal)  Act, 1950 provides for  appeals\tfrom
\ndecisions  of certain Industrial Tribunals to the  Appellate
\nTribunal established under it.\tClause 31 therefore makes  a
\ndecision of the Tribunal on a reference to it final  subject
\nto  an appeal if any allowed under the\tIndustrial  Disputes
\n(Appellate  Tribunal) Act, 1950.  Under a. 7 of the  Act  of
\n1950, an appeal shall lie to the Appellate Tribunal from any
\naward  or  decision  of an  Industrial\tTribunal  concerning
\ncertain\t specified  matters.   Now  an\tIndustrial  Tribunal
\nmentioned  in s. 7 includes a Tribunal set up under a  State
\nlaw  which  law\t does not provide for an  appeal  :  see  a.
\n2(o)(iii)  of  the  Act of 1950.  The U.  P.  Act  does\t not
\nprovide for any appeal expressly but cl. 31 of the Statutory
\nOrder makes a decision of the Tribunal final subject to
\n68<\/span>
\nthe  provisions\t of  the Act of 1950.\tIt  would  therefore
\nappear that an appeal would lie under the Act of 1950 to the
\nAppellate Tribunal constituted under it from a decision of a
\nTribunal set up under the Statutory Order.  Now under a.  10
\nof  the\t Act of 1950, an appeal is  competent  if  preferred
\nwithin\tthirty days from the date of the publication of\t the
\naward  where  such publication is provided for\tby  the\t law
\nunder  which  the  award is made, or from the  date  of\t the
\nmaking\tof  the award where there is no provision  for\tsuch
\npublication.   Now the U.P. Act or the Statutory Order\tdoes
\nnot  provide for any publication of an award.  Therefore  an
\nappeal\tfrom the Tribunal set up under the  Statutory  Order
\nhas  to be filed within thirty days from the making  of\t the
\naward.\t Hence\tagain it is essential that the date  of\t the
\nmaking of the award shall be known to the parties to  enable
\nthem  to  avail\t themselves of the right  of  appeal.\tThis
\ncannot\tbe known unless the judgment is pronounced  in\topen
\ncourt\tfor   the  date\t of  award  is\tthe  date   of\t its
\npronouncement.\tHence again pronouncement of the judgment in
\nopen court is essential.  If it were not so, the  provisions
\nfor appeal might be rendered ineffective.
\nFor  all  these\t reasons  it seems  to\tus  that  the  clear
\nintention  of the legislature is to make it imperative\tthat
\njudgments should be pronounced in open court by the Tribunal
\nand  judgments\tnot  so\t pronounced  would  therefore  be  a
\nnullity.\n<\/p>\n
In  the\t view that we have taken it is unnecessary  to\tdeal
\nseparately  with Standing Order No. 36.\t The  provisions  of
\nthat Standing Order and cl. 9(7) of the Statutory Order\t are
\nsubstantially\tthe   same.   They   should   therefore\t  be
\ninterpreted in the same way.  In any case since we have held
\nthe  el.  9(7) of the Statutory Order to be  imperative.  it
\nwould  not  matter whatever view is taken  of  the  Standing
\nOrder for the latter cannot affect the former.\n<\/p>\n
69<\/span><\/p>\n
Mr.  Aggarwala\tthen argued that cl. 9(7) of  the  Statutory
\nOrder and Standing Order No. 36 were ultra vires as being in
\nconflict with the Act under which they had been framed.\t His
\ncontention  was\t this : Under s. 6 of the Act all  that\t the
\nTribunal has to do is to submit its award to the  Government
\nafter the conclusion of the enquiry before it.\tThe  section
\ndoes  not require the Tribunal to pronounce its decision  in
\nopen  court.  The provisions in the Statutory Order and\t the
\nStanding  Order\t both  of  which  were\tmade  under   powers
\ncontained  in the Act, were therefore in conflict with s.  6
\nand  of\t no effect.  Hence he contended\t that  the  question
\nwhether the provisions of cl. 9(7) of the Statutory Order or
\nof the Standing Order No. 36 were imperative did not  really
\narise.\n<\/p>\n
It  seems  to us that this contention of  Mr.  Aggarwala  is
\nwithout any foundation.\t Section 6 when it requires that the
\nTribunal   shall   submit  its\taward  to   the\t  Government
\nnecessarily  contemplates the making of the award.   Neither
\ns.  6  nor any other provision in the Act provides  how\t the
\naward is to be made.\n<\/p>\n
Under s. 3(g) however the Government has power by general or
\nspecial.  order to provide for incidental  or  supplementary
\nmatters necessary for the decision of an industrial  dispute
\nreferred for adjudication under any order made tinder s.  3.
\n‘rho  provision as to the pronouncement of the\tdecision  in
\nopen  court  in\t (19(7) of the Statutory  Order\t clearly  is
\nwithin the power,; contemplated in s. 3(g).  Section 6\tdoes
\nnot  prohibit  the  making of such a  provision.   Its\tmain
\npurpose\t is  to direct that the Tribunal  shall\t submit\t the
\naward to the Government so that it may be enforced.  It\t has
\nnothing\t to do with the manner in which the ‘Tribunal is  to
\nmake
\n70<\/span>
\nits  award.  A rule duly framed under the Act requiring\t the
\nTribunal  to  pronounce\t its  decision\tin  open  court\t  is
\ntherefore not in conflict with s. 6.\n<\/p>\n
The result is that these appeals fail and are dismissed with
\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n
Appeals dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Lakshmi Ice Factory & Others on 7 February, 1962 Equivalent citations: 1963 AIR 399, 1962 SCR Supl. (3) 59 Author: A Sarkar Bench: Sarkar, A.K. PETITIONER: STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs. RESPONDENT: LAKSHMI ICE FACTORY & OTHERS DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07\/02\/1962 BENCH: SARKAR, A.K. BENCH: SARKAR, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-151473","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of Uttar Pradesh vs Lakshmi Ice Factory & Others on 7 February, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-lakshmi-ice-factory-others-on-7-february-1962\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Lakshmi Ice Factory & Others on 7 February, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-lakshmi-ice-factory-others-on-7-february-1962\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1962-02-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-07-11T08:52:01+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-lakshmi-ice-factory-others-on-7-february-1962#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-lakshmi-ice-factory-others-on-7-february-1962\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Lakshmi Ice Factory & Others on 7 February, 1962\",\"datePublished\":\"1962-02-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-11T08:52:01+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-lakshmi-ice-factory-others-on-7-february-1962\"},\"wordCount\":3234,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-lakshmi-ice-factory-others-on-7-february-1962#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-lakshmi-ice-factory-others-on-7-february-1962\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-lakshmi-ice-factory-others-on-7-february-1962\",\"name\":\"State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Lakshmi Ice Factory & Others on 7 February, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1962-02-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-11T08:52:01+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-lakshmi-ice-factory-others-on-7-february-1962#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-lakshmi-ice-factory-others-on-7-february-1962\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-lakshmi-ice-factory-others-on-7-february-1962#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Lakshmi Ice Factory & Others on 7 February, 1962\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Lakshmi Ice Factory & Others on 7 February, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-lakshmi-ice-factory-others-on-7-february-1962","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Lakshmi Ice Factory & Others on 7 February, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-lakshmi-ice-factory-others-on-7-february-1962","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1962-02-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-07-11T08:52:01+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-lakshmi-ice-factory-others-on-7-february-1962#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-lakshmi-ice-factory-others-on-7-february-1962"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Lakshmi Ice Factory & Others on 7 February, 1962","datePublished":"1962-02-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-11T08:52:01+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-lakshmi-ice-factory-others-on-7-february-1962"},"wordCount":3234,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-lakshmi-ice-factory-others-on-7-february-1962#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-lakshmi-ice-factory-others-on-7-february-1962","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-lakshmi-ice-factory-others-on-7-february-1962","name":"State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Lakshmi Ice Factory & Others on 7 February, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1962-02-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-11T08:52:01+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-lakshmi-ice-factory-others-on-7-february-1962#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-lakshmi-ice-factory-others-on-7-february-1962"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-lakshmi-ice-factory-others-on-7-february-1962#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Lakshmi Ice Factory & Others on 7 February, 1962"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/151473","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=151473"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/151473\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=151473"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=151473"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=151473"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}