{"id":221125,"date":"1960-11-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1960-11-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-swadeshi-cotton-mills-vs-rajeshwar-prashad-and-ors-on-14-november-1960"},"modified":"2018-06-20T10:12:56","modified_gmt":"2018-06-20T04:42:56","slug":"ms-swadeshi-cotton-mills-vs-rajeshwar-prashad-and-ors-on-14-november-1960","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-swadeshi-cotton-mills-vs-rajeshwar-prashad-and-ors-on-14-november-1960","title":{"rendered":"M\/S. Swadeshi Cotton Mills &#8230; vs Rajeshwar Prashad And Ors on 14 November, 1960"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">M\/S. Swadeshi Cotton Mills &#8230; vs Rajeshwar Prashad And Ors on 14 November, 1960<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1961 AIR  429, \t\t  1961 SCR  (2) 359<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: P Gajendragadkar<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Gajendragadkar, P.B.<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nM\/S.  SWADESHI COTTON MILLS CO.,LTD., KANPUR\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nRAJESHWAR PRASHAD AND ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n14\/11\/1960\n\nBENCH:\nGAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B.\nBENCH:\nGAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B.\nSARKAR, A.K.\nWANCHOO, K.N.\n\nCITATION:\n 1961 AIR  429\t\t  1961 SCR  (2) 359\n\n\nACT:\nIndustrial Dispute--Compromise during pendency of  appeal---\nValidity--Procedure--The U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947\n(U.   P. XXVIII of 1947), ss. 6-c, 2(t)--U.   P.  Industrial\nDisputes  Rules, 1957, r. 5(1)--Payment of Wages  Act,\t1936\n(Act 4 of 1936), s. 23.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nWhile\tthis  appeal  by  special  leave,  relating  to\t  an\nindustrial  dispute was pending in this Court a Director  of\nthe   appellant\t employer  and\ta  representative   of\t the\nrespondents  employees\tmade  an application  to  the  Court\npraying\t that  an  order  might be  passed  in\tterms  of  a\ncompromise  since  an  agreement was alleged  to  have\tbeen\nentered into by the appellants and the respondents.  Some of\nthe respondents contested this compromise and the court sent\nissues to the Tribunal for finding whether the alleged\tcom-\npromise actually took place between the parties, and if\t so,\nwas it valid.  The Tribunal returned findings to the  effect\nthat  the compromise did actually take place and was  valid.\nThose findings were contested in the appeal.\nHeld,  that  a\tcompromise agreement seeking  to  settle  an\nindustrial dispute which was still pending decision in\tthis\nCourt  would not contravene the provisions of S. 23  of\t the\nPayment of Wages Act which contemplated rights not likely to\nbe modified or reversed in any judicial proceedings.\nThe  procedure prescribed by s. 6-C of the U. P.  Industrial\nDisputes  Act and the provisions thereof did not affect\t the\npowers\tof this Court, or the competence of the parties,  to\namicably settle a dispute pending before it.\nThe  procedure for obtaining an order in terms of  the\tcom-\npromise entered into between the parties pending the  appeal\nin  this  Court\t is  prescribed by its\town  rules  and\t the\nprovisions  of S. 2(t) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes\t Act\nand  rule  5(1)\t of  the  Rules\t made  thereunder  have\t  no\napplication to such case.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 53 of 1958.<br \/>\nAppeal by special leave from the Decision dated February 28,<br \/>\n1957,  of the Labour Appellate Tribunal, Bombay,  in  Appeal<br \/>\nNo. 111-160 of 1956.\n<\/p>\n<p>S.   P. Varma, for the appellants.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">360<\/span><\/p>\n<p>L.   K. Jha, Janardan Sharma, R. C. Prasad and Maqbool Ahmad<br \/>\nKhan, for the respondents.\n<\/p>\n<p>1960.  November 14.  The Judgment of the Court was delivered<br \/>\nby<br \/>\nGAJENDRAGADKAR, J.-This appeal by special leave arises\tfrom<br \/>\nan   industrial\t dispute  between  the\t appellant   Messrs.<br \/>\nSwadeshi  Cotton Mills and the respondents,  its  employees,<br \/>\nand  the short preliminary question which is raised for\t our<br \/>\ndecision  is whether an order should not be passed  in\tthis<br \/>\nappeal in terms of the compromise agreement alleged to\thave<br \/>\nbeen reached between the appellant and the respondents.\t  It<br \/>\nappears\t that  on December 28, 1955, an\t industrial  dispute<br \/>\nbetween the parties was referred by the Government of  Uttar<br \/>\nPradesh\t to the Industrial Tribunal, U. P.,  Allahabad,\t for<br \/>\nadjudication  under ss. 3, 4 and 8 of the U.  P.  Industrial<br \/>\nDisputes  Act,\t1947  (U.P.  Act  XXVIII  of  1947)  and  in<br \/>\npursuance  of  the  provisions of cl. 11 of  G.\t O.  No.  U-<br \/>\n464(LL)\/XXXVI-B-257 (LL)\/1954 issued on July 14, 1954.\t The<br \/>\ndispute\t thus  referred was whether the\t existing  rates  of<br \/>\nwages  of jobbers mentioned in the annexure employed in\t the<br \/>\nweaving\t department of the appellant need any  revision;  if<br \/>\nso,  with  what details and from what date  ?  The  Tribunal<br \/>\ntried this issue and came to the conclusion that no case for<br \/>\nrevision had been made out by the respondents.\tAgainst this<br \/>\ndecision of the Tribunal the respondents preferred an appeal<br \/>\nbefore\t the  Labour  Appellate\t Tribunal.    Their   appeal<br \/>\nsucceeded and the Appellate Tribunal directed that the award<br \/>\nof  the original Tribunal should be set aside, and that\t the<br \/>\nappellant  &#8221;  shall introduce from the date of\treference  a<br \/>\nuniform\t rate  of two annas in both the old  and  new  sheds<br \/>\nirrespective  of  the number of looms assigned to  the\tline<br \/>\njobbers\t &#8220;.  It would be noticed that as a  result  of\tthis<br \/>\ndecision  the  existing\t rates have  been  revised  and\t the<br \/>\nrevision  has  been ordered to take  effect  retrospectively<br \/>\nfrom the date of reference.  It is against this decision  of<br \/>\nthe  Labour  Appellate\tTribunal  that\tthe  appellant\t has<br \/>\npreferred the present appeal by special leave.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">361<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Pending this appeal in this Court the appellant purported to<br \/>\nenter  into a compromise with the respondents and the  terms<br \/>\nof the compromise were reduced to writing, and in  pursuance<br \/>\nof the said compromise an application was made to this Court<br \/>\non  February 26,1958, signed by Mr. Bagla, on behalf of\t the<br \/>\nappellant  in his capacity as a Director of  the  appellant,<br \/>\nand  Mr.  Maqbool Ahmad Khan, for the  respondents,  in\t his<br \/>\ncapacity  as the General Secretary of the Suti Mill  Mazdoor<br \/>\nSabha, Kanpur.\tThis application set out the material  terms<br \/>\nof  the compromise.  One of the terms of the  compromise  is<br \/>\nthat  the revised rate should take effect not from  December<br \/>\n28,  1955, which is the date of reference but from  July  1,<br \/>\n1957.\tCertain other modifications have also been  made  in<br \/>\nthe decision under appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>Before\tthe appeal could be placed on the Board for  passing<br \/>\norders\tin terms of this compromise an application was\tmade<br \/>\non  behalf  of\tsome of the respondents\t alleging  that\t the<br \/>\nGeneral\t Secretary  Mr. Khan had no authority  or  power  to<br \/>\nenter  into  any  compromise  as  a  representative  of\t the<br \/>\nrespondents,  and that the compromise alleged to  have\tbeen<br \/>\nentered into by him with the appellant was not acceptable to<br \/>\nthe  respondents.  In support of this case  the\t application<br \/>\nreferred  to a resolution passed by the General\t Council  of<br \/>\nthe  Mazdoor  Sabha whereby it was declared that  no  office<br \/>\nbearer could conclude an agreement with an employer about an<br \/>\nindustrial  dispute  without  the  consent  of\tthe  General<br \/>\nCouncil,  and  reliance\t was also  placed  on  the  relevant<br \/>\nprovisions in the constitution of the Mazdoor Sabha.<br \/>\nThereafter  the\t petition for compromise was  placed  before<br \/>\nthis  Court  for hearing on April 10, 1960,  and  the  Court<br \/>\ndirected  that the application for recording  compromise  as<br \/>\nwell as the appeal itself should both be placed together for<br \/>\nhearing\t before the Court as soon as the parties file  their<br \/>\nrespective  statements\tof the case.  After  the  statements<br \/>\nwere  filed the appeal and the petition were  placed  before<br \/>\nthis Court on May 5, 1960, and the Court by an interlocutory<br \/>\njudgment<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">46<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">362<\/span><br \/>\nsent two issues to the Tribunal with a direction that the  Tribunal<br \/>\nshould hear the parties on those issues and  make\t its<br \/>\nfindings thereon.  The two issues were: (1)  Has\t the<br \/>\ncompromise  set up by the appellant taken place between\t the<br \/>\nparties; (2) If yes, is the compromise valid ? In  pursuance<br \/>\nof this order the Tribunal has recorded evidence, heard\t the<br \/>\nparties\t and  made its\t findings.  It has  found  that\t the<br \/>\ncompromise  in\tfact  has  taken place\tas  alleged  in\t the<br \/>\npetition made before this Court in that behalf, and that the<br \/>\nsaid  compromise  is  valid.   In  dealing  with  the  first<br \/>\nquestion  of fact the Tribunal has considered  the  evidence<br \/>\nexhaustively  in the light of the background of the  dispute<br \/>\nbetween the parties; it has found that negotiations went  on<br \/>\nbetween\t the  parties for a fairly long\t time  during  which<br \/>\nperiod\tthe  parties  discussed the pros  and  cons  of\t the<br \/>\ncompromise,  that  during these negotiations  Mr.  Khan\t was<br \/>\nwatchful  of  the  interests of the  respondents,  that\t the<br \/>\ncompromise had been approved by the workmen concerned,\tthat<br \/>\non  the whole it is to their advantage and does not  at\t all<br \/>\nmilitate  against  the\taccepted  principles  of  industrial<br \/>\nadjudication,  and what is more it has been acted  upon\t and<br \/>\nhas not remained a mere paper transaction.  It has explained<br \/>\nthat  the  opposition  to  the\tcompromise  proceeded\tsub-<br \/>\nstantially from the dispute between Mr. Khan, the Secretary,<br \/>\nand  Mr.  Bajpai, the President, and the  Tribunal  felt  no<br \/>\ndoubt  that  the  compromise was the  result  of  bona\tfide<br \/>\nattempt\t on  the  part of both the  parties  to\t settle\t the<br \/>\ndispute\t amicably  in  order  to  create  goodwill  and\t co-<br \/>\noperation amongst the employer and the employees.<br \/>\nOn  the\t question  of law raised by  the  second  issue\t the<br \/>\nTribunal  has held that the compromise is  perfectly  valid.<br \/>\nIt   has   considered  the  relevant   provisions   of\t the<br \/>\nconstitution  of  this\tSabha, the  practice  prevailing  in<br \/>\nregard\tto  such compromises and to  several  agreements  of<br \/>\ncompromise entered into consistently with the said practice.<br \/>\nIt  was\t urged before the Tribunal that\t the  compromise  is<br \/>\ninvalid\t under s. 6-B of the U.P. Industrial  Disputes\tAct,<br \/>\n1947, as well as s. 2(vi). (c)\t   of  the Payment of  Wages<br \/>\nAct, 1936 (Act 4 of 1936).\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">363<\/span><\/p>\n<p>These  contentions have been rejected by the  Tribunal.\t  In<br \/>\nthe  result the findings recorded on both the issues are  in<br \/>\nfavour of the compromise.\n<\/p>\n<p>After  these  findings\twere received in  this\tCourt,\tthe&#8217;<br \/>\nappeal\tand the compromise petition have now come before  us<br \/>\nfor  final  disposal.  The finding of fact recorded  by\t the<br \/>\nTribunal  on  the  first issue has not been  and  cannot  be<br \/>\nchallenged  before us.\tIt must( therefore be taken to\thave<br \/>\nbeen established that at the relevant time Mr. Khan was\t the<br \/>\nGeneral Secretary of the respondents Sabha, and as such\t was<br \/>\nentitled to represent them and did represent them during the<br \/>\ncourse of the present adjudication proceedings, and that the<br \/>\ncompromise  reached  between him and the  appellant  is\t the<br \/>\nresult\tof mutual discussions carried on for some  time\t and<br \/>\nits  terms on the whole are beneficial to  the\trespondents.<br \/>\nThe practice prevailing in this Sabha and a large number  of<br \/>\nprecedents  which  are\tconsistent with\t the  said  practice<br \/>\nindicate  clearly  that\t the  Secretary\t of  the  Union\t who<br \/>\nrepresents  the\t workmen in industrial disputes\t has  always<br \/>\nbeen  authorised and has exercised his authority  to  settle<br \/>\nsuch  disputes when it was thought reasonable and proper  to<br \/>\ndo  so.\t As we have often indicated it is  always  desirable<br \/>\nthat industrial disputes should be amicably settled  because<br \/>\nsuch  settlement conduces to happy  industrial\trelationship<br \/>\nand  encourages co-operation between the parties.   That  is<br \/>\nwhy  when industrial disputes are brought before this  Court<br \/>\nunder  Art.  136 of the Constitution  this  Court  generally<br \/>\nappreciates  attempts made to settle disputes amicably,\t and<br \/>\nin  proper cases encourages such settlements.  Mr. Jha,\t for<br \/>\nthe  respondents,  however, contends  that  though  amicable<br \/>\nsettlement   of\t  industrial  disputes\tmay   otherwise\t  be<br \/>\ndesirable, in law such settlement or compromise is  illegal.<br \/>\nIf  we come to the conclusion that compromise of  industrial<br \/>\ndisputes  pending  an  appeal is prohibited by\tlaw,  or  is<br \/>\notherwise  inconsistent\t with  such  provisions\t it  may  be<br \/>\nnecessary to hold that the present compromise is bad in\t law<br \/>\nhowever much amicable settlement of industrial disputes\t may<br \/>\notherwise be desirable.\t Therefore the question which arises<br \/>\nfor our<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">364<\/span><br \/>\ndecision  on  the  present compromise petition\tis:  Is\t the<br \/>\ncontention raised by Mr. Jha correct that the compromise  is<br \/>\ninvalid in law ?\n<\/p>\n<p>The first point urged by Mr. Jha in support of this argument<br \/>\nis that the present compromise is prohibited by a. 23 of the<br \/>\nPayment of Wages Act.  This Act has been passed to  regulate<br \/>\nthe payment of wages to certain classes of persons  employed<br \/>\nin  industry,  and  there is no doubt  that  the  wages as<br \/>\nrevised by the Labour Appellate Tribunal in the present case<br \/>\nwould constitute wages under s. 2 (vi) of this Act.  Section<br \/>\n23  provides  that any contract or agreement,  whether\tmade<br \/>\nbefore\tor  after the commencement of this Act,\t whereby  an<br \/>\nemployed person relinquishes any right conferred by this Act<br \/>\nshall  be null and void in so far as it purports to  deprive<br \/>\nhim  of\t such right.  The relevant provisions  of  this\t Act<br \/>\nrequire\t the fixation of wage periods, provide for the\ttime<br \/>\nof  payment  of wages, authorises  certain  deductions,\t and<br \/>\npermits\t the  imposition  of  fines  only  subject  to\t the<br \/>\nconditions specified in that behalf.  Section 15 of the\t Act<br \/>\nprovides  for  the determination of claims  arising  out  of<br \/>\ndeduction of wages or delay in payment of wages and penalty<br \/>\nfor  malicious or vexatious claims.  Section  16  prescribes<br \/>\nfor the making of an application in which such claims can be<br \/>\nset  up;  and  a.  18  provides\t for  the  powers  for\t the<br \/>\nauthorities appointed under the Act.  Mr. Jha contends\tthat<br \/>\nthe revised wage structure directed by the Labour  Appellate<br \/>\nTribunal  entitles the respondents to claim  the  respective<br \/>\namounts\t there indicated as their wages, and the  effect  of<br \/>\nthe   impugned\tcompromise  is\tthat  the  respondents\t are<br \/>\nrelinquishing a part of their right in that behalf.  Mr. Jha<br \/>\ncon. tends that in giving up their claim for the  retrospec-<br \/>\ntive  operation\t of  the decision of  the  Labour  Appellate<br \/>\nTribunal  for  a  substantial part of the  period  the\tres-<br \/>\npondents  are required to contract themselves out  of  their<br \/>\nlegal  rights  conferred  by  the  award  and  there.\tfore<br \/>\nreferable  to  this  Act,  and\tthat  makes  the  compromise<br \/>\ninvalid.    This   argument  is\t misconceived\tbecause\t  it<br \/>\nfallaciously  assumes  that the decision  under\t appeal\t has<br \/>\nbecome final and that the rights accruing under<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">365<\/span><br \/>\nthe said decision would not be and cannot be affected by any<br \/>\ncompromise.   The most significant fact to remember in\tthis<br \/>\nconnection is that the decision on( which the alleged rights<br \/>\nare based is itself subject to an appeal before this  Court,<br \/>\nand  in that sense it is not a final decision at all; it  is<br \/>\nliable\tto  be reversed or modified, and that being  so\t the<br \/>\nrights claimable  under the said decision are also liable to<br \/>\nbe  defeated,  or materially affected.\tIn such a  case\t the<br \/>\nindustrial&#8217; dispute would undoubtedly be pending before this<br \/>\nCourt,\tand it would be idle for Mr. Jha to contend that  an<br \/>\nattempt\t to  settle  such  a dispute and  not  to  invite  a<br \/>\ndecision  of this Court contravenes the provisions of a.  23<br \/>\nof this Act.  Just as an industrial dispute could have\tbeen<br \/>\nsettled\t between the parties either before it  was  referred<br \/>\nfor adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, or after it was<br \/>\nreferred  and  before  the  award  was\tpronounced  by\t the<br \/>\nTribunal,  so would it be open to the parties to settle\t the<br \/>\ndispute\t so long as it was pending either before the  Labour<br \/>\nAppellate Tribunal or before this Court.  The provisions  of<br \/>\ns.  23 of this Act postulate certain definite  rights  which<br \/>\nare  not likely or liable to be modified or reversed in\t any<br \/>\npending\t judicial  proceedings,\t and since  this  factor  is<br \/>\nabsent in cases where an appeal is pending before this Court<br \/>\nit  would not be reasonable to rely on the  said  provisions<br \/>\nand  contend  that  they in substance  prevent\tor  prohibit<br \/>\namicable settlement of disputes.\n<\/p>\n<p>The  other  argument  urged  against  the  validity  of\t the<br \/>\ncompromise is based on the provisions of s. 6-C of the U. P.<br \/>\nIndustrial  Disputes  Act, 1947.  This\tsection\t corresponds<br \/>\nsubstantially to s. 19 of the Industrial Disputes Act XIV of<br \/>\n1947.\tIt provides, inter alia, that an award shall in\t the<br \/>\nfirst  instance\t remain in operation for the period  of\t one<br \/>\nyear or such shorter period as may be specified therein, and<br \/>\ngives  the  State Government power to extend the  period  of<br \/>\noperation  from\t time  to time if it thinks  fit.   It\talso<br \/>\nprovides that the State Government, either on its own motion<br \/>\nor  on\tthe  application of any party bound  by\t the  award,<br \/>\nshorten\t the  period of its operation, if it is\t shown\tthat<br \/>\nthere has been a material change in the circumstances<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">366<\/span><br \/>\non  which  the award was based.\t The argument  is  that\t any<br \/>\nmodification  in the award can only be made by adopting\t the<br \/>\nprocedure prescribed by s. 6-C.\t In our opinion there is  no<br \/>\nsubstance in this argument.  Section 6-C undoubtedly confers<br \/>\nupon the State Government certain powers to fix the duration<br \/>\nof  the\t operation of the award, but there can be  no  doubt<br \/>\nthat  the section can have no bearing on the powers of\tthis<br \/>\nCourt  in dealing with an industrial dispute brought  before<br \/>\nit  under Art. 136 of the Constitution.\t The award to  which<br \/>\ns.  6-C\t refers is an award which has become  final  in\t the<br \/>\nsense  that it is no longer subject to consideration by\t any<br \/>\nTribunal or Court.  So long as an award is pending before  a<br \/>\nTribunal or a Court the jurisdiction of the Tribunal or\t the<br \/>\nCourt to deal with it in accordance with law is not affected<br \/>\nby s. 6-C, and the competence of the parties to settle their<br \/>\ndispute pending before the Tribunal or the Court is also not<br \/>\naffected  or impaired by the said section.  In other  words,<br \/>\nwhat we have said about the argument based on the provisions<br \/>\nof  s.\t23 of the Payment of Wages Act\tapplies\t with  equal<br \/>\nforce to the present argument as well.\n<\/p>\n<p>Then it is contended that the impugned compromise is   a<br \/>\nsettlement within the meaning of s. 2(t) of the\t U.    P.<br \/>\nAct  and  as  such it can be executed  only  in\t the  manner<br \/>\nprescribed by the Act.\tSection 2(t) defines a settlement as<br \/>\none  which  is\tarrived at in  the  course  of\tconciliation<br \/>\nproceedings and as including a written agreement between the<br \/>\nemployer  and the workmen arrived at otherwise than  in\t the<br \/>\ncourse\tof conciliation proceedings when such  an  agreement<br \/>\nhas  been signed between the parties thereto in such  manner<br \/>\nas may be prescribed and a copy thereof has been sent to the<br \/>\nState Government and the conciliation officer.\tRule 5(1) of<br \/>\nthe  U. P. Industrial Disputes Rules, 1957,  prescribes\t the<br \/>\nprocedure for recording a settlement as defined by s.  2(t).<br \/>\nIt is true that this procedure has not been followed, but it<br \/>\nis  difficult  to understand how s. 2(t)  or  the  procedure<br \/>\nprescribed  by\tr.  5(1)  can  have  any  application  to  a<br \/>\ncompromise agreement which has been entered into between the<br \/>\nparties pending the<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">367<\/span><br \/>\nappeal\tin  this  Court.   The\tcompromise  in\tquestion  is<br \/>\nintended  to  be  filed in this Court  for  the\t purpose  of<br \/>\nenabling the parties to request this Court to pass an, order<br \/>\nin  terms  of  the  said  compromise.\tThe  procedure\t for<br \/>\nobtaining  such\t an order which has to be  followed  is\t the<br \/>\nprocedure prescribed by the rules of this Court, just as  if<br \/>\na  compromise was reached before the Tribunal the  procedure<br \/>\nto be followed before it would be, the procedure  prescribed<br \/>\nby  its\t rules.\t  Therefore  we\t have  no  doubt  that\t the<br \/>\ncompromise   in\t question  cannot  attract   the   procedure<br \/>\nprescribed by r. 5(1).\n<\/p>\n<p>The result is that the finding recorded by the Tribunal that<br \/>\nthe  compromise in question is valid is obviously right\t and<br \/>\nmust be confirmed.  Since it is found that the compromise in<br \/>\nfact  has  taken place and is otherwise valid,\twe  have  no<br \/>\nhesitation  in\tdirecting that an order should be  drawn  in<br \/>\nterms of the said compromise in the present appeal.<br \/>\nOrder accordingly.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India M\/S. Swadeshi Cotton Mills &#8230; vs Rajeshwar Prashad And Ors on 14 November, 1960 Equivalent citations: 1961 AIR 429, 1961 SCR (2) 359 Author: P Gajendragadkar Bench: Gajendragadkar, P.B. PETITIONER: M\/S. SWADESHI COTTON MILLS CO.,LTD., KANPUR Vs. RESPONDENT: RAJESHWAR PRASHAD AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14\/11\/1960 BENCH: GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. BENCH: GAJENDRAGADKAR, [&hellip;]<\/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-221125","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>M\/S. Swadeshi Cotton Mills ... vs Rajeshwar Prashad And Ors on 14 November, 1960 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/ms-swadeshi-cotton-mills-vs-rajeshwar-prashad-and-ors-on-14-november-1960\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S. Swadeshi Cotton Mills ... vs Rajeshwar Prashad And Ors on 14 November, 1960 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-swadeshi-cotton-mills-vs-rajeshwar-prashad-and-ors-on-14-november-1960\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1960-11-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-06-20T04:42:56+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=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-swadeshi-cotton-mills-vs-rajeshwar-prashad-and-ors-on-14-november-1960#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-swadeshi-cotton-mills-vs-rajeshwar-prashad-and-ors-on-14-november-1960\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S. Swadeshi Cotton Mills &#8230; vs Rajeshwar Prashad And Ors on 14 November, 1960\",\"datePublished\":\"1960-11-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-20T04:42:56+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-swadeshi-cotton-mills-vs-rajeshwar-prashad-and-ors-on-14-november-1960\"},\"wordCount\":2770,\"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\\\/ms-swadeshi-cotton-mills-vs-rajeshwar-prashad-and-ors-on-14-november-1960#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-swadeshi-cotton-mills-vs-rajeshwar-prashad-and-ors-on-14-november-1960\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-swadeshi-cotton-mills-vs-rajeshwar-prashad-and-ors-on-14-november-1960\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S. Swadeshi Cotton Mills ... vs Rajeshwar Prashad And Ors on 14 November, 1960 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1960-11-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-20T04:42:56+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-swadeshi-cotton-mills-vs-rajeshwar-prashad-and-ors-on-14-november-1960#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-swadeshi-cotton-mills-vs-rajeshwar-prashad-and-ors-on-14-november-1960\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-swadeshi-cotton-mills-vs-rajeshwar-prashad-and-ors-on-14-november-1960#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S. Swadeshi Cotton Mills &#8230; vs Rajeshwar Prashad And Ors on 14 November, 1960\"}]},{\"@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":"M\/S. Swadeshi Cotton Mills ... vs Rajeshwar Prashad And Ors on 14 November, 1960 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/ms-swadeshi-cotton-mills-vs-rajeshwar-prashad-and-ors-on-14-november-1960","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S. Swadeshi Cotton Mills ... vs Rajeshwar Prashad And Ors on 14 November, 1960 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-swadeshi-cotton-mills-vs-rajeshwar-prashad-and-ors-on-14-november-1960","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1960-11-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-06-20T04:42:56+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":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-swadeshi-cotton-mills-vs-rajeshwar-prashad-and-ors-on-14-november-1960#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-swadeshi-cotton-mills-vs-rajeshwar-prashad-and-ors-on-14-november-1960"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S. Swadeshi Cotton Mills &#8230; vs Rajeshwar Prashad And Ors on 14 November, 1960","datePublished":"1960-11-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-20T04:42:56+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-swadeshi-cotton-mills-vs-rajeshwar-prashad-and-ors-on-14-november-1960"},"wordCount":2770,"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\/ms-swadeshi-cotton-mills-vs-rajeshwar-prashad-and-ors-on-14-november-1960#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-swadeshi-cotton-mills-vs-rajeshwar-prashad-and-ors-on-14-november-1960","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-swadeshi-cotton-mills-vs-rajeshwar-prashad-and-ors-on-14-november-1960","name":"M\/S. Swadeshi Cotton Mills ... vs Rajeshwar Prashad And Ors on 14 November, 1960 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1960-11-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-20T04:42:56+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-swadeshi-cotton-mills-vs-rajeshwar-prashad-and-ors-on-14-november-1960#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-swadeshi-cotton-mills-vs-rajeshwar-prashad-and-ors-on-14-november-1960"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-swadeshi-cotton-mills-vs-rajeshwar-prashad-and-ors-on-14-november-1960#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S. Swadeshi Cotton Mills &#8230; vs Rajeshwar Prashad And Ors on 14 November, 1960"}]},{"@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\/221125","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=221125"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/221125\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=221125"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=221125"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=221125"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}