{"id":40731,"date":"1967-08-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1967-08-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/treogi-nath-vs-the-indian-iron-steel-co-ltd-on-3-august-1967"},"modified":"2016-03-03T21:46:52","modified_gmt":"2016-03-03T16:16:52","slug":"treogi-nath-vs-the-indian-iron-steel-co-ltd-on-3-august-1967","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/treogi-nath-vs-the-indian-iron-steel-co-ltd-on-3-august-1967","title":{"rendered":"Treogi Nath vs The Indian Iron & Steel Co. Ltd on 3 August, 1967"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Treogi Nath vs The Indian Iron & Steel Co. Ltd on 3 August, 1967<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1968 AIR 205, \t\t 1968 SCR (1)\t 97<\/div>\n
Author: V Bhargava<\/div>\n
Bench: Bhargava, Vishishtha<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nTREOGI NATH\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE INDIAN IRON & STEEL CO.  LTD.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n03\/08\/1967\n\nBENCH:\nBHARGAVA, VISHISHTHA\nBENCH:\nBHARGAVA, VISHISHTHA\nSHELAT, J.M.\n\nCITATION:\n 1968 AIR  205\t\t  1968 SCR  (1)\t 97\n\n\nACT:\nIndustrial   Disputes  Act,  1947  (14\tof  1947),  s.\t 33C\n(2)--Labour Court not specified for computing money value of\nthe\tbenefit\t   claimed    by    workmen\tunder\t  s.\n33C(2)--Jurisdiction.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nUnder  an award in an industrial dispute, it was  held\tthat\nthe  appellants-workmen were entitled to half wages  from  a\ncertain date to the date they resumed duty.  After the final\ndisposal of the companies' appeal, the workmen were  allowed\nto  resume  duties.  Thereafter, a dispute arose as  to\t the\namount to which the workmen were entitled.  The workmen,  by\nseparate  applications, applied to the Second Labour  Court,\nWest  Bengal  for determination of the amounts due  to\tthem\nunder  s. 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.\t The\ncompanies  challenged the jurisdiction of the Second  Labour\nCourt  on the ground that the court had not  been  specified\nfor  the  purpose  of determining the amount  at  which\t the\nbenefit\t claimed by the workmen was to be computed in  terms\nof  money  under  s. 33C(2) of\tthe  Act.   The\t preliminary\nobjection  was accepted by the Second Labour Court,  against\nwhich the workmen filed a writ petition.  This petition\t was\naccepted  by the High Court, but in appeal, the\t High  Court\ndismissed the petition.\nHELD: The appeal must fail.\nThe mere fact that a Labour Court has been constituted under\ns.  7(1)  of  the Act, for the purpose\tof  adjudication  of\nIndustrial   Disputes  as  well\t as  for  performing   other\nfunctions that may be assigned to it under the Act does\t not\nmean that the court is automatically specified as the  Court\nfor  the purpose of exercising jurisdiction under s.  33C(2)\nof  the\t Act.  Section 33C(2) confers jurisdiction  only  on\nthose  Labour  Courts which are specified  in  this  behalf,\ni.e.,  such Labour Courts which are specifically  designated\nby  the\t State Government for the purpose of  computing\t the\nmoney value of the benefit claimed by a workman.  The Second\nLabour Court, West Bengal, was never specified by any  order\nof the State Government as one of those Labour Courts  which\nwas to exercise the powers or discharge the functions  under\ns. 33C(2). [10OC-E].\nThough\tthe Civil Courts are constituted under s. 13 of\t the\nBengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, the power of  those\ncourts to take cognizance of civil suits, and decide them is\nconferred  by  the Code of Civil Procedure.  It\t is  not  by\nvirtue of their constitution under s. 13 of the Bengal, Agra\nand  Assam Civil Courts Act that the Courts take  cognizance\n(of  civil suits and decide them.  Section 33C (2),  in\t the\nmatter\tof  applications  made\tby  individual\tworkmen,  is\ntherefore, not comparable with s. 13(2) of the Bengal,\tAgra\nand  Assam  Civil  Courts Act, but in fact,  lays  down\t the\nrequirement which must be satisfied before the Labour  Court\ncan  take cognizance of the matter raised before it  by\t the\napplications  of the workman\tsection 33C(2) would,  thus,\nserve  the  purpose in the case of Labour  Courts  which  is\nserved by the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure\t re-\nlating to cognizance in respect of Civil Courts. [102B-D]\n98\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 370 of 1967.
\nAppeal\tfrom the judgment and order dated July 22,  1963  of
\nthe Calcutta High Court in Appeal from Original Order No. 58
\nof 1963.\n<\/p>\n
E.   Udayaratnan and A. P. Chatterjee, for the appellants.
\nH.   R. Gokhale and D. N. Mukherjee, for respondents Nos.
\n1-3.\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nBhargava,  J.-On an industrial dispute referred to  it,\t the
\nFifth  Industrial  Tribunal of West Bengal  gave  an  award,
\nwhich  was published on September 19, 1955, under  which  41
\npersons, including the 30 appellants who had been  dismissed
\nfrom service by the two Companies, which are respondents 1 &
\n2 in this appeal, were directed to be reinstated in service.
\nUnder  the  award, it was held that  these  appellants\twere
\nentitled  to half their salary from October 2, 1953  to\t the
\ndate. of their actual resumption of duty.  According to\t the
\nappellants,  they  were not allowed to resume  duty  by\t the
\nCompanies, even though they offered to do so.  The Companies
\ndid  not admit that there was any such offer and went up  in
\nappeal\tto  the Labour Appellate Tribunal  and\tobtained  an
\norder  of stay of implementation of the award from it.\t The
\nLabour Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal, where  after
\nthe Companies came in further appeal to this Court, and this
\nCourt  also granted stay of the implementation of the  award
\nduring\tthe  pendency  of  that\t appeal.   After  the  final
\ndismissal  of the appeal by this Court, the appellants\twere
\nallowed\t to resume their duty.\tThereafter, a dispute  arose
\nas to the amount to which the appellants were entitled under
\nthe award until the date of resumption of duty by them.\t The
\nappellants, by separate applications, applied to the  Second
\nLabour Court, West Bengal, for determination of the  amounts
\ndue to them under section 33C(2) of the Industrial  Disputes
\nAct. 1947 (No. 14 of 1947) (hereinafter referred to as\t“the
\nAct”).\t The  Companies challenged the jurisdiction  of\t the
\nSecond\tLabour Court on the ground that that Court  had\t not
\nbeen specified for the purpose of determining the amount  at
\nwhich  the benefit claimed by the workmen is to be  computed
\nin  terms  of  money  under S.\t33C(2)\tof  the\t Act.\tThis
\npreliminary  objection\twas accepted by\t the  Second  Labour
\nCourt  which  held that it had no jurisdiction to  make\t any
\norder on the applications presented by the appellants.\t The
\nappellants  then filed a petition under Article 226  of\t the
\nConstitution  in the High Court of Calcutta challenging\t the
\ncorrectness of the view taken by the Second Labour Court.  A
\nlearned single Judge of that Court came to the decision that
\nthe Second Labour Court had jurisdiction to take proceedings
\non the applications of the appellants under s. 33C(2) of the
\nAct, and
\n99<\/span>
\nconsequently,  issued,\ta writ of  certiorari  vacating\t the
\norder made by the Second Labour Court and a writ of mandamum
\ndirecting  the Second Labour Court to decide on\t merits\t the
\napplications  presented\t on behalf of the  appellants.\t The
\nCompanies  then\t went before a Division Bench by  a  Letters
\nPatent\tAppeal\tand,  in that appeal, the  decision  of\t the
\nlearned\t single Judge was set aside and that of\t the  Second
\nLabour Court was restored.  The appellants have now come  up
\nto  this  Court by special leave against this order  of\t the
\nDivision  Bench of the Calcutta High Court by which  it\t has
\nbeen  held that the Second Labour Court had no\tjurisdiction
\nto deal with these applications of the appellants.
\nFor  convenience, the provisions of sub-ss. (1) and  (2)  of
\nsection 33C of the Act, as they stood at the relevant  time,
\nare reproduced below: –\n<\/p>\n
\t      “33C.    Recovery\t of  money  due\t  from\t the
\n\t      Employer-(1)  Where  any\tmoney is  due  to  a
\n\t      workman from an employer under a settlement or
\n\t      an  award or under the provisions\t of  Chapter
\n\t      VA, the workman may, without prejudice to\t any
\n\t      other mode of recovery, make an application to
\n\t      the appropriate Government for the recovery of
\n\t      the  money due to him, and if the\t appropriate
\n\t      Government  is satisfied that any money is  so
\n\t      due,  it\tshall issue a certificate  for\tthat
\n\t      amount  to the Collector who shall proceed  to
\n\t      recover  the  same in the same  manner  as  an
\n\t      arrear of land revenue.\n<\/p>\n
\t      (2)Where any workman is entitled to receive
\n\t      from the employer any benefit which is capable
\n\t      of  being\t computed  in terms  of\t money,\t the
\n\t      amount   at  which  such\tbenefit\t should\t  be
\n\t      computed may, subject to any rules that may be
\n\t      made  under  this Act, be determined  by\tsuch
\n\t      Labour  Court  as\t may be\t specified  in\tthis
\n\t      behalf by the appropriate Government, and\t the
\n\t      amount  so  determined  may  be  recovered  as
\n\t      provided for in sub-section (1).”\n<\/p>\n
The  language of Sub-s. (2) of s. 33C is perfectly clear  in
\nlaying\tdown that the computation in terms of money  of\t the
\nbenefit\t claimed by a workman is to be made by\tsuch  Labour
\nCourt as may be specified in this behalf by the\t appropriate
\nGovernment  and, consequently, the only question that  falls
\nfor determination is whether it can be held that the  Second
\nLabour\tCourt, to which applications were presented  by\t the
\nappellants,  bad been specified as “the Court” to  make\t the
\ndetermination  under s. 33C(2).\t It was conceded by  counsel
\nfor both parties that there was no general or specific order
\nmentioning the Second Labour Court, West Bengal as the
\n100<\/span>
\nCourt  specified  for purposes of making  the  determination
\nunder s. 33C(2).  On behalf of the appellants, it was  urged
\nthat  the  Second  Labour  Court  should  be  held  to\thave
\njurisdiction to deal with these applications, because it was
\nconstituted under s. 7(1) of the Act and every Labour  Court
\nconstituted  under  the Act would be competent to  make\t the
\ndetermination  under  s. 33C(2) by virtue of  the  provision
\ncontained in that sub-section itself.\n<\/p>\n
Section 7(1) of the Act lays down that:-\n<\/p>\n
\t      \"The    appropriate   Government\t  may,\t  by\n\t      notification   in\t  the\tOfficial    Gazette,\n<\/pre>\n
\t      constitute  one or more Labour Courts for\t the
\n\t      adjudication  of industrial disputes  relating
\n\t      to any matter specified in the Second Schedule
\n\t      and for performing such other functions as may
\n\t      be assigned to them under this Act.”\n<\/p>\n
The submission which was made before the High Court was that
\nthe matter which was raised by the applications presented on
\nbehalf\tof  the\t appellants related to one  of\tthe  matters
\nspecified  in  the  Second  Schedule,  because\tthe   Second
\nSchedule  at  Item No. 6 contained the\tentry  “all  matters
\nother  than  those  specified in  the  Third  Schedule”\t and
\ndetermination  of  money  value of a benefit  claimed  by  a
\nworkman\t is  not one of the matters specified in  the  Third
\nSchedule.   This  contention was rejected by  the  appellate
\nBench  of the High Court.  It was not sought to\t be  pressed
\nbefore us by learned counsel for the appellants when it\t was
\npointed\t out to him that even if it be held that the  matter
\nraised\tby the appellants him their applications related  to
\none  of those enumerated in the Second Schedule, that  would
\nbe  immaterial, because, tinder s.7(1) of the Act, a  Labour
\nCourt  is  constituted for the purpose\tof  adjudication  of
\nindustrial disputes relating to those matters, and it cannot
\npossibly  be  contended that these disputes  raised  by\t in-
\ndividual  workmen for determination of amounts due  to\tthem
\nunder  the award constituted industrial disputes.  In  fact,
\nthis  Court,  in  the Central Bank of  India  Ltd.  v.\tP.S.
\nRajagopalan<\/a> etc.,(1) clearly held that proceedings under  s.
\n33C  of the Act are in the nature of  execution\t proceedings
\nand  are  not  meant  to include  in  them  proceedings\t for
\nadjudication  of  industrial  disputes\twhich  can  only  be
\ncompetently  decided by a Labour Court on reference  by\t the
\nappropriate Government under s-10(1) of the Act.  It was  in
\nview of this clear legal position that the counsel appearing
\nfor  the appellants relied on the second part of  s.7(1)  of
\nthe  Act,  under which Labour Courts  are  constituted\t“for
\nperforming  such other functions as may be assigned to\tthem
\nunder this Act”.\n<\/p>\n
Labour\tCourt,\tWest  Bengal, having  been  constituted\t for
\nperforming  such other functions also as may be assigned  to
\nit under the
\n(1)[1964] 3 S.C.R. 140.\n<\/p>\n
101<\/span><\/p>\n
Act,  it should be held that it was competent to decide\t the
\ndispute\t raised\t by these applications\tof  the\t appellants,
\nbecause this function of deciding the applications had\tbeen
\nassigned  to it by s. 33C(2) of the Act.  The submission  of
\nlearned\t counsel  was  that s. 33(C)(2) should\tbe  read  as
\ncontaining a general assignment to all Labour Courts of\t the
\nfunction of determining the money value of a benefit claimed
\nby a workman under that provision.  We are unable to  accept
\nthis interpretation.  The language of s. 33C(2) itself makes
\nit clear that the appropriate Government has to specify\t the
\nLabour Court which is to discharge the functions under\tthis
\nsub-section.   The use of the expression “specified in\tthis
\nbehalf” is significant.\t The words “in this behalf” must  be
\ngiven  their full import and effect.  They clearly  indicate
\nthat  there  must  be a\t specification\tby  the\t appropriate
\nGovernment  that  a  particular Court is  to  discharge\t the
\nfunction  under s. 33C(2) and, thereupon, it is\t that  Court
\nalone  which  will have jurisdiction to proceed\t under\tthat
\nprovision.   The  more\tfact that a Labour  Court  has\tbeen
\nconstituted  under  s. 7(1) of the Act for  the\t purpose  of
\nadjudication   of  industrial  disputes\t as  well   as\t for
\nperforming other functions that may be assigned to it  under
\nthe  Act  does\tnot mean that that  Court  is  automatically
\nspecified  as  the  Court  for\tthe  purpose  of  exercising
\njurisdiction  under  s.\t 33C(2) of  the\t Act.\tS.  33(C)(2)
\nconfers\t jurisdiction only on those Labour Courts which\t are
\nspecified in this behalf, i.e., such Labour Courts which are
\nspecifically  designated  by the State\tGovernment  for\t the
\npurpose of computing the money value of the benefit  claimed
\nby a workman.  The Second Labour Court, West Bengal, was  in
\nfact,  never specified by any order of the State  Government
\nas  one\t of  those Labour Courts which is  to  exercise\t the
\npowers or discharge the functions under s. 33C(2).
\nIn this connection, learned counsel appearing for the appel-
\nlants  wanted  to  draw an analogy with section\t 13  of\t the
\nBengal,\t Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act XII of 1887,  under
\nwhich  a  State\t Government  may,  by  notification  in\t the
\nOfficial  Gazette,  fix and alter the local  limits  of\t the
\njurisdiction  of  any Civil Court under that  Act.   It\t was
\nurged  by  him\tthat  this  provision  was  similar  to\t the
\nprovision contained in s. 7(1) of the Act.  Section 13(2) of
\nthe Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act thereafter gives
\nthe  power to the District Judge, in cases where same  local
\njurisdiction  is assigned to two or more Subordinate  Judges
\nor  to two or more Munsifs, to assign to each of  them\tsuch
\ncivil  business\t cognizable  by\t the  Subordinate  Judge  or
\nMunsif,\t as the case may be, as, subject to any\t general  or
\nspecial\t orders\t of the High Court, he thinks fit.   It\t was
\nsuggested  that\t s.33C(2) of the Act makes  a  provision  in
\nrespect of Labour Courts of the same nature as the provision
\nmade  by s.13(2) of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil  Courts
\nAct  in respect of Subordinate Judges or Munsifs, and  since
\nSubordinate Judges and Munsifs can exercise jurisdiction  by
\nvirtue of s.   13(1)  of that Act to decide civil suits,  it
\nshould be held that Labour
\n102<\/span>
\nCourts, by virtue of their constitution under s.7(1) of\t the
\nAct,  get  the\tjurisdiction to\t decide\t applications  under
\ns.33C(2) also, and the specification of Courts mentioned  in
\nthat  sub-section is only for the purpose of deciding  which
\nLabour Court should exercise jurisdiction where there may be
\nmore  than  one\t Labour Court.\tWe do not  think  that\tthis
\ncomparison is correct or justified.  Though Civil Courts are
\nconstituted  under s.13 of the Bengal, Agra and Assam  Civil
\nCourts Act, it has to be remembered that the power of  those
\nCourts to take cognizance of civil suits and decide them  is
\nconferred  by  the Code of Civil Procedure.  It\t is  not  by
\nvirtue of their constitution under s.13 of the Bengal,\tAgra
\nand  Assam Civil Courts Act that the Courts take  cognizance
\nof  civil  suits and decide them.  Section  33C(2),  in\t the
\nmatter\tof  applications  made by  individual  workmen,\t is,
\ntherefore,  not comparable with s.13(2) of the Benaal,\tAgra
\nand  Assam  Civil Courts Act, but, in fact,  lays  down\t the
\nrequirement which must be satisfied before the Labour  Court
\ncan  take cognizance of the matter raised before it  by\t the
\napplications  of the workmen.  Section 33C(2)  would,  thus,
\nserve  the  purpose in the case of Labour  Courts  which  is
\nserved\tby  the provisions of the Code\tof  Civil  Procedure
\nrelating  to  cognizance in respect of.\t civil\tcourts.\t  S.
\n33C(2),\t  by   its  language,  makes  it  clear\t  that\t the
\njurisdiction under that provision is to be exercised only by
\nthose  particular Courts which are specified in that  behalf
\nby  the State Government and, in fact, confers\tjurisdiction
\non only those Courts and not on all Labour Courts, which may
\nhave been constituted under s.7(1) of the Act.
\nIt  was\t also urged- by learned counsel before\tus  that  we
\nshould\tgive  a liberal construction to\t the  provisions  of
\ns.33C(2) so as to ensure that the benefits of that provision
\nare  not  denied  to a workman even if\ta  State  Government
\nneglects  to specify a Labour Court in that behalf.   We  do
\nnot think that there is any force in this submission.\tWhen
\na provision has been made in s.33C(2) for specification of a
\nLabour\tCourt in that behalf by the appropriate\t Government,
\nit is presumed that that Government will carry out its\tduty
\nand  will  make\t the necessary\tspecification.\t Even  under
\ns.7(1)\tof  the\t Act,  the  power  is  granted\tto  a  State
\nGovernment  to\tconstitute Labour Courts, and if  the  State
\nGovernment   neglects  to  constitute  Labour  Courts,\t the
\nprovisions   of\t  s.33C(2)   would   automatically    become
\nineffective.   This  would  be\tno  ground  for\t giving\t  an
\ninterpretation\tto  s.7(1)  which would\t do  away  with\t the
\nnecessity  of the Labour Court being constituted by a  State
\nGovernment.   It may also be incidentally mentioned that  in
\nWest  Bengal  the State Government had made  Rules  in\t1958
\nunder s.38 of the Act and Rule 74 was as follows: –\n<\/p>\n
\t      “74.   Application  for  recovery\t of  dues-An
\n\t      application   under  section  33C\t  shall\t  be
\n\t      delivered\t   personally\tor   forwarded\t  by
\n\t      registered post in triplicate to the Secretary
\n\t\t\t\t   103<\/span>
\n\t      to  the  Government  of  West  Bengal  in\t the
\n\t      Department  of Labour or to such\tofficers  to
\n\t      whom powers have been delegated under  section
\n\t      39 of the Industrial Disputes Act.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
This Rule lays down that all applications under s.33C are to
\nbe  delivered  to the Secretary to the\tGovernment  of\tWest
\nBengal\tin the Department of Labour, or to such officers  to
\nwhom  powers may have been delegated under s.39 of the\tAct.
\nThe purpose of the application being sent to the  Government
\nis  clear.   If\t the  application  is  under  s.33C(1),\t the
\nGovernment is to take action on that application itself\t and
\nis to realise the money claimed in that application.  On the
\nother hand, if the application happens to be under s.33C(2),
\nthe purpose of delivery of that application to the Secretary
\nto  the Government clearly would be that, on  that  applica-
\ntion, the Government would specify the Labour Court which is
\nto  deal  with that application.  It appears that,  in\tsome
\nStates,\t the appropriate Government has. by general  orders,
\nspecified  Labour  Courts  for\tthe  purpose  of  exercising
\njurisdiction  under  s.33C(2). So far as the  Government  of
\nWest  Bengal  is  concerned, it did not\t issue\tany  similar
\ngeneral\t order,\t and the intention of Rule 74 was  that\t any
\nworkman wishing to obtain relief under s.33C(2) should apply
\nto  the State Government when the Government  would  specify
\nthe  Labour  Court  for the purpose  of\t dealing  with\tthat
\napplication.  This position has been further clarified by  a
\nsubsequent  amendment of Rule 74 under which it\t is  clearly
\nprovided  that\twhere any work. man is entitled\t to  receive
\nfrom  the  employer any benefit which is  capable  of  being
\ncomputed in terms of money, the workman concerned may  apply
\nto  the\t State\tGovernment in the prescribed  Form  for\t the
\nspecification  of a Labour Court for determining the  amount
\nof  his dues.  It is true that this Rule 74 did not in\tthis
\nform exist at the relevant time, with which we are concerned
\nin  the\t pro sent case, but we agree with the Bench  of\t the
\nCalcutta High Court that Rule 74, as it stood at that  time,
\nwas also intended to lay down that a workman claiming relief
\nunder  s.33C(2)\t must present his application to  the  State
\nGovernment, whereupon the State Government would specify the
\nLabour Court which was to deal with it under s.33C(2) of the
\nAct.\n<\/p>\n
For  the reasons given above, we hold that the\tdecision  of
\nthe Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court is correct and
\nmust be upheld.\t The appeal fails and is dismissed, but,  in
\nthe  circumstances  of\tthis case, we make no  order  as  to
\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n
Y.  P.\t\t\t\t\t\t      Appeal\ndismissed.\n104<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Treogi Nath vs The Indian Iron & Steel Co. Ltd on 3 August, 1967 Equivalent citations: 1968 AIR 205, 1968 SCR (1) 97 Author: V Bhargava Bench: Bhargava, Vishishtha PETITIONER: TREOGI NATH Vs. RESPONDENT: THE INDIAN IRON & STEEL CO. LTD. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03\/08\/1967 BENCH: BHARGAVA, VISHISHTHA BENCH: BHARGAVA, VISHISHTHA […]<\/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-40731","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nTreogi Nath vs The Indian Iron & Steel Co. Ltd on 3 August, 1967 - 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\/treogi-nath-vs-the-indian-iron-steel-co-ltd-on-3-august-1967\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Treogi Nath vs The Indian Iron & Steel Co. Ltd on 3 August, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/treogi-nath-vs-the-indian-iron-steel-co-ltd-on-3-august-1967\" \/>\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=\"1967-08-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-03-03T16:16:52+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=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/treogi-nath-vs-the-indian-iron-steel-co-ltd-on-3-august-1967#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/treogi-nath-vs-the-indian-iron-steel-co-ltd-on-3-august-1967\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Treogi Nath vs The Indian Iron & Steel Co. Ltd on 3 August, 1967\",\"datePublished\":\"1967-08-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-03T16:16:52+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/treogi-nath-vs-the-indian-iron-steel-co-ltd-on-3-august-1967\"},\"wordCount\":2843,\"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\\\/treogi-nath-vs-the-indian-iron-steel-co-ltd-on-3-august-1967#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/treogi-nath-vs-the-indian-iron-steel-co-ltd-on-3-august-1967\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/treogi-nath-vs-the-indian-iron-steel-co-ltd-on-3-august-1967\",\"name\":\"Treogi Nath vs The Indian Iron & Steel Co. Ltd on 3 August, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1967-08-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-03T16:16:52+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/treogi-nath-vs-the-indian-iron-steel-co-ltd-on-3-august-1967#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/treogi-nath-vs-the-indian-iron-steel-co-ltd-on-3-august-1967\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/treogi-nath-vs-the-indian-iron-steel-co-ltd-on-3-august-1967#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Treogi Nath vs The Indian Iron & Steel Co. Ltd on 3 August, 1967\"}]},{\"@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":"Treogi Nath vs The Indian Iron & Steel Co. Ltd on 3 August, 1967 - 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\/treogi-nath-vs-the-indian-iron-steel-co-ltd-on-3-august-1967","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Treogi Nath vs The Indian Iron & Steel Co. Ltd on 3 August, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/treogi-nath-vs-the-indian-iron-steel-co-ltd-on-3-august-1967","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1967-08-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-03-03T16:16:52+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":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/treogi-nath-vs-the-indian-iron-steel-co-ltd-on-3-august-1967#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/treogi-nath-vs-the-indian-iron-steel-co-ltd-on-3-august-1967"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Treogi Nath vs The Indian Iron & Steel Co. Ltd on 3 August, 1967","datePublished":"1967-08-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-03T16:16:52+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/treogi-nath-vs-the-indian-iron-steel-co-ltd-on-3-august-1967"},"wordCount":2843,"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\/treogi-nath-vs-the-indian-iron-steel-co-ltd-on-3-august-1967#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/treogi-nath-vs-the-indian-iron-steel-co-ltd-on-3-august-1967","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/treogi-nath-vs-the-indian-iron-steel-co-ltd-on-3-august-1967","name":"Treogi Nath vs The Indian Iron & Steel Co. Ltd on 3 August, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1967-08-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-03T16:16:52+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/treogi-nath-vs-the-indian-iron-steel-co-ltd-on-3-august-1967#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/treogi-nath-vs-the-indian-iron-steel-co-ltd-on-3-august-1967"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/treogi-nath-vs-the-indian-iron-steel-co-ltd-on-3-august-1967#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Treogi Nath vs The Indian Iron & Steel Co. Ltd on 3 August, 1967"}]},{"@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\/40731","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=40731"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/40731\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=40731"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=40731"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=40731"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}