Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10
PETITIONER:
SHREE SITA RAM SUGAR CO. LTD.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT AND OTHERS
DATE OF JUDGMENT24/04/1973
BENCH:
VAIDYIALINGAM, C.A.
BENCH:
VAIDYIALINGAM, C.A.
GROVER, A.N.
CITATION:
1973 AIR 2281 1974 SCR (1) 62
1974 SCC (3) 239
ACT:
U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Section 6-G(1)-Power of
State Government to withdraw reference from Labour Court or
Tribunal-Power is confined to withdrawal of reference for
the purpose of transferring adjudication of the reference to
another Labour Court or Tribunal.
HEADNOTE:
The appellant company retired three of its workmen and the
industrial dispute thus arising was referred to the Labour
Court, Gorakhpur, for adjudication The reference was
registered by the Labour Court as Adjudication Case No. 93
of 1960. The parties filed their written statement and
proceedings went on resulting in the Labour Court passing an
order dated February 26, 1961 holding that the retirement of
the three workmen was neither legal nor justified. There
were similar disputes regarding the retirement of several
other workmen and the dispute relating to them was referred
to the same Labour Court and this reference was registered
as Adjudication Case No. 98 of 1960. The three workmen
whose cases were the subject matter of the first reference
were also included in the second reference. They applied to
the Labour Court to have their names deleted from the second
reference, and they were accordingly deleted. The Labour
Court gave its award in the second reference on February 27,
1961. In this award the Labour Court specifically stated
that it was not recording any finding with regard to the
three workmen covered by the first reference. On a
representation made by the appellant the State Government
issued a notification on February 28. 1961 withdrawing the
first reference relating to the three aforesaid workmen.
This was purported to be done under sub-section (1) of
section 6-G of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Even
so the State Government published the award in the first
reference on May 6, 1961. The appellant filed a writ
petition in the High Court under article 226 of the
Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing
the award dated February 26, 1961 and also for a mandamus
directing the State Government to withdraw its Notification
dated May 6. 1961. The single Judge as well as the Division
Bench decided against the appellant.
In appeal before this Court,
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10
HELD : (i) The wording of sub-section (1) of section 6-G is
capable of being construed as conferring on the State
Government a power to withdraw any proceedings or to
transfer a proceeding from one Labour Court or Tribunal to
another. But having regard to the scheme of section 6-G
read in the light of the other provisions of the Act the
section will have to be interpreted as giving to the State
Government only a power to transfer a proceeding from one
Labour Court to another. When section 6 makes it obligatory
that an award has to be made by the tribunal concerned and
that It has to be published by the State Government within
30 days of its receipt and declares that the award on is
idle to expect that the legislature intended to by
conferring an absolute power of withdrawal on Government
State section 6-G. The proper way of reading section 6-G is
to limit the power of withdrawal referred to therein only
for the purpose of transferring proceedings from one Labour
Court or Tribunal to another. [75D]
The provisions of s. 33B and s. 6-D of the Act did not
support a contrary conclusion.
Sirsilk Ltd. and Others v. Government of Andhra Pradesh &
Another [1964] 2 S.C.R. 448, distinguished.
(ii) The expression ’or’ in s. 6-G (1) interposed between
’withdraw any proceedings’ or ’transfer a proceeding’ will
have to be understood as ’and’. [75H]
Mazagaon Dock Ltd. v. The Commissioner of income-tax and
Excess Profits Tax, [1959] S.C.R., 848 relied on.
68
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1958 of 1968.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated
August 2, 1966 of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal
No. 960 of 1964.
G. B. Pai, Bhuvnesh Kumari, O. C. Mathur, J. B. Dadachanji
& Co., for the appellant.
Danial Latifii and S. Ramachandran, for respondents Nos. 4
and 5.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
VAIDIALINGAM, J. The short question that raises for
consideration in this appeal, by special leave, is whether
the State Government has power- under section 6G of the U.P.
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred to
as the Act) to withdraw an order already passed referring a
dispute for adjudication. The facts leading up to the
filing of the Writ Petition by the appellant are as follows
The appellant, a public limited company, carrying on
business of manufacture and sale of sugar from sugarcane,
employs about a thousand workmen in its factory at
Baitalpur. The appellant retired three workmen, namely,
Chhatradheri Lal Chandrika Prasad Srivastava and Bal Karan.
This led to an industrial dispute. The State Government by
Notification No. 785/LC/XVIII/LA-97(GR)/1959 dated October
25, 1960, referred the said dispute to the Labour Court,
Gorakhpur, for adjudication. This reference (hereinafter to
be referred to as Reference, No. 1) was registered by the
Labour Court as Adjudication Case No. 93 of 1960. The
parties filed their written statements and proceedings went
on resulting in the Labour Court passing an award dated
February 26, 1961, holding) that the retirement of the three
workmen was neither legal nor justified. This award was
published in the U.P. Gazette dated May 6, 1961, by the
State Government’s Notification dated April 4, 1961, No.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10
1176(EIO)36/ A/46(ST)-59. There were similar disputes
regarding the retirement of several other workmen and
accordingly that dispute was referred by the State
Government to the same Labour Court for adjudication by
Notification No. 322(LC)XVIII-LA-115,(GS)/1959 dated October
31, 1960. This reference (hereinafter to be, referred to as
Reference No. 11) was registered by the Labour Court as
Adjudication Case No. 98 of 1960. At this stage it must be
mentioned that Reference No. 11 related to several workmen
numbering about thirty or forty which included also the
three Workmen covered by Reference No. 1. The three workmen
covered by Reference No. 1 made an application to the Labour
Court for deleting their names from Reference No. 11 on the
ground that their grievance is the subject of adjudication
in Case No. 93 of 1960. Though the appellant opposed this
application, the Labour Court by its order dated February
21, 1961, accepted the prayer of the three workmen and as
such they ceased to have anything to do further in Reference
No. 11. Adjudication Case No. 98 of 1960, arising out of
Reference No. 11, also resulted in an- award being passed by
the Labour Court on February 27, 1961. In this award, the
Labour Court had decided the dispute on merits. But it has
specifically stated that it is not record’ any finding with
’regard to the ing
69
three workmen covered by Reference No. 1, as their names
have been excluded from Adjudication Case No. 98 of 1960,
arising out of Reference No. 11. This award dated February
27, 1961, was published in the State Gazette on April 4,
196f.
We have earlier mentioned that the award dated February 26,
1961, in Adjudication Case No. 93 of 1960, arising out of
Reference No. 1, was published in the State Gazette on May
6, 1961. After the award was made on February 26, 1961, the
State Government issued a Notification on February 28, 1961,
withdrawing the Notification dated October 25, 1960, making
Reference No. 1. The order of withdrawal runs as follows
"GOVERNMENT OF UTTAR PRADESH
LABOUR (A) DEPARTMENT
No. 167(LG)/XVIII-LA-97(GR)/1959
Dated Kanpur, February 28, 1961
ORDER
Whereas an industrial dispute between the
employers and the workmen of the concern known
as Shree Sitaram Sugar Co. Ltd., Baitalpur,
Distt. Deoria relating to retirement of the
workmen, was referred for adjudication to the
Labour Court at Gorakhpur in G.O. No.’
785(LC)/XVIILLA-97 (GR)/1959, dated October
25, 1960.
And whereas the same dispute is also covered
by G.O. No. 822 (LC)/XVIII-LA-115(GR)/1959,
dated October 31, 1960, as amended by G.O. No.
912(LC)/XVIII-LA115(GR)/1959, dated November
21, 1960, referring the same question of
retirement of workmen to Labour Court at
Gorakhpur;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers
conferred by sub section (1) of section 6-G of
the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (U.P.
Act No. XXVIII of 1947), the Governor is
pleased to order that G.O. No. 785(LC)/ XVIII-
LA-97(GR)/1959, dated October 25 1960,
referring the said dispute for adjudication,
shall be and is hereby withdrawn."
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10
Sd/- J. Prasad
Under Secretary."
It will be noted from the above Notification that the State
Government had withdrawn its previous order-referring the
dispute by Virtue of powers stated to be conferred under
subsection (1) of section-6--G of the Act. We have also
referred to the fact that the award in Reference No. 1 was
published in the State Gazette on May 6, 1961. It will be
noted that the material dates to be considered with regard
to Reference No.1 are as follows :-
(a) The dispute was referred for
adjudication by Notification dated October 25,
1960.
(b) The award was made on February 26, 1961.
70
(c) The Notification dated October25, 1960,
referring the dispute was withdrawn by
Notification dated February 28, 1961.
(d) The award was published in the State
Gazette dated May 6, 1961.
It will be noted from these dates that the order withdrawing
the original reference was made two days after the Tribunal
had passed the award. The publication of the award was
after the State Government had withdrawn its original order
making the reference.
The appellant filed the Writ Petition in the High Court
under Article 226 for the issue of writ of certiorari
quashing the award dated February 26, 1961 and also for a
mandaus directing the State Government to withdraw its
Notification dated May 6, 1961, publishing the award. The
proceedings before the High Court related to the matters
arising out of Reference No. 1. According to the appellant,
the, award dated February 28, 1961, had become ineffectual
and useless in view of the State Government having withdrawn
the Notification dated October 25, 1960, referring the
dispute for adjudication. Its further contention was that
having withdrawn on February 28, 1961, its previous order
referring the dispute, the State Government had no power to
publish the award, as it had done on May 6, 1961 and that
the said order publishing the award had to be revoked. The
union contested the Writ Petition on the ground that the
State Government has no power under section 6-G to withdraw
an order already passed referring a dispute for adjudication
and that, in any event, it has no such power after an award
has been made by a Labour Court or Tribunal. According to
the union, the order of withdrawal dated February 28, 1961,
is of no effect and that the publication of the award on May
6, 1961, was valid and that the State- Government cannot be
called upon to revoke the same.
The learned single Judge posed two questions for
consideration
(1) whether the power to withdraw under
section 6-G of the Act is confined to
withdrawal for purposes of transferring the
proceedings to another Court or Tribunal; and
(2) whether the power under section 6-G can
be exercised at any stage until the award of
the Labour Court or Tribunal has become
enforceable under section 6-A of the Act.
The learned single Judge did not consider the first question
and proceeded on the assumption that under section 6-G the
State Government has power to Withdraw a reference already
made. But, after considering the second question, he came
to the conclusion that the power of Withdrawal cannot be
exercised after in award had been made by the Tribunal
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10
concerned. In this view, the learned single Judge held that
the order of withdrawal dated February 28, 1961, was of no
effect and that tie publication of the award on May 6, 1961,
was according to law. In this view, the Court declined to
grant any relief to the appellant.
71
The appellant challenged the decision of the learned single
Judge in Special Appeal No. 960 of 1964. The Division Bench
of the Allahabad High Court has held that the State
Government has power under section 6-G to withdraw any
proceedings pending before a. Labour Court or Tribunal. But
it held that as-the award had been made on February 26,
1961, there were no proceedings pending before the Labour
Court on February 28, 1961, when the order-of withdrawal was
passed by the State Government. In this view the Division
Bench held that it was not open to the State Government to
withdraw the proceedings after the award had been made by
the Tribunal and, therefore, the Notification dated February
28, 1961, is of no effect. By judgment and order dated
August 2, 1966, the learned Judges confirmed the order of
the single Judge and dismissed the Special Appeal. The
management has come to this Court in this appeal.
Mr. G. B. Pai, learned counsel for the appellant, placed
considerable stress on the language of section 6-G of the
Act and pointed out that in addition to the power of
transferring a proceeding- from one Labour Court or Tribunal
to another, the said section, has conferred an absolute
right on the State Government to withdraw an order already
passed referring a dispute for adjudication. There is only
an obligation on the State Government to make the order in
writing and also give reasons for the action taken by it.
The counsel very heavily relied on section 6-D of the Act
and urged that this power of withdrawing a reference can be
exercised till the date when the award becomes enforceable.
Therefore, the mere fact that an award has been made does
not take away the power of the State Government to, withdraw
a reference. In the case before us, the counsel pointed out
that the award had been made only on February 26, 1961 and
the reference had been withdrawn by the State Government on
February 25, 1961, long before the award had become
enforceable. The counsel urged that, in view of the
circumstances pointed out above, the view of the High Court
that the State Government has no power to withdraw the
reference, as the award has been made, is erroneous.
Mr. Daniel Latifi, learned counsel for the workmen
concerned, on_ the other hand, urged that the view of the
High Court that there is a power under section 6-G in the
State Government to withdraw a reference is erroneous. The
counsel pointed out that section 6-G confers on the State
Government only a power to transfer a proceeding from one
Labour Court or Tribunal to another. The counsel-also
pointed out that section 6-D has no bearing in the
construction of section 6-G of the Act. When there is no
power in the State Government to Withdraw a reference, the
counsel pointed out, the question at what stage the
proceedings can be withdrawn is purely academic. Even
assuming that there is a power under section 6-G an the
State Government to withdraw an order of reference already
made, that-section, the counsel pointed out, does not give
power to order such withdrawal after an award has been
passed. According to him once an award has been made by a
Labour Court or Tribun proceedings before it come to a close
and there is nothing for being withdrawn by the State
Government. The counsel supported the reasoning of the High
Court that section 6-G does not confer any Power on the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10
State Government to
72
withdraw an order of reference after an award had been made
by the Labour Court or Tribunal concerned.’
In our opinion, the first and foremost question that should
have been considered by the High Court is whither section 6-
G confers a power on the State Government to withdraw an
order earlier passed referring a dispute for adjudication.
It is only when this point is answered in the affirmative
the, further question is upto what stage can the power of
withdrawal be exercised by the State. The, State of Uttar
Pradesh was a party before the learned single Judge as well
as the High Court and is 2nd respondent in the appeal before
us. We have already referred to the fact that the relief
that was asked for by the appellant was by way of writ of
mandamus directing the State Government to withdraw the
publication, made in the Gazette of May 6, 1961, of the
award by its order dated April 4, 1961. This relief was
asked for by the appellant on the ground that the order
dated February 28, 1961, of the State, Government
withdrawing the reference was well within its power. In the
Writ Petition the powers and functions of the State
Government under the Act came squarely for consideration.
Under those circumstances one would have expected the State
Government to appear before this Court and place its point
of view regarding the points under consideration.
Unfortunately, the State Government has chosen to remain
exparte in this appeal. Hence we have to decide the points
in controversy only on the basis of the contentions advanced
on behalf of the employer and the workmen.
It is now necessary to refer to certain relevant provisions
of the Act. According to the preamble, the Act has been
enacted to provide for powers to prevent strikes and lock-
outs and for the settlement of industrial disputes and other
incidental matters. Section 2(c) states :
" ’ Award’ means an interim or final
determination of any industrial dispute or of
any question relating thereto by, any Labour
Court or Tribunal and includes an arbitration
award made under Section 5-B."
The above definition takes in both interim and final awards.
’Section 4-K gives power to the State Government to refer
for adjudication an industrial dispute to the Labour Court
or an Industrial Tribunal under the circumstances mentioned
therein. Section 5 gives power to the State Government to
include other undertakings in any adjudication. Section 6
dealing with the proceedings before a Tribunal, Submission
of the award and its publication runs as follows :-
"6. Awards and action to be taken thereon-
(1)Where an industrial dispute, has been
referred to a Labour Court or Tribunal for
adjudication, it shall hold its proceedings
expeditiously ’and shall as soon as it is
practicable on the conclusion thereof. submit
its award to the State Government.
(2)The award of a Court or Tribunal shall
be in writing and shall be signed by its
Presiding Officer.
73
(3)Subject to the provisions of sub-section
(4) every arbitration award and the award of a
Labour Court or Tribunal, shall within a
period of thirty days from the date of its
receipt by the State Government, be published
in such manner as the State Government thinks
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10
fit.
(4)The State Government may before
publication of an award of a Labour Court or
Tribunal under sub-section (3), remit the
award for reconsideration of the adjudicating
authority , and that authority shall, after
reconsideration submit its award to the State
Government, and the State Government shall
publish the award in the manner provided in
sub-section (3).
(5)Subject to the provisions of section 6-
A, an award published under sub-section (3)
shall be final and shall not be called in
question in any court in any manner whatso-
ever.
(6)A Labour Court, Tribunal or Arbitrator
any "either of its own motion or on the
application of any party to the dispute,
correct any clerical or arithmetical mistake
in the award, or errors arising therein from I
any accidental. slip or omission; whenever any
correction is made as aforesaid, a copy of the
order shall be sent to the State Government
and the provision of this Act, relating to the
publication of an award shall mutatis mutandis
apply thereto."
The above section clearly indicates that when once an
industrial dispute has been referred for adjudication, the
Labour Court or Tribunal has to conduct its proceedings
expeditiously and it has to submit its award to the State
Government. The award has to be published within thirty
days of its receipt by the State Government. Power has no
doubt been given to the State Government, before publication
of an award, to remit the same for reconsideration. When
the same-is received after reconsideration, the State
Government is bound to publish the same, as provided under
sub-section (3). An award published under sub-section (3)
is final subject to the provisions-of section 6-A. The
Labour Court or Tribunal has power to correct any clerical
or arithmetical mistake in the award. But if any such
correction is made, a copy of the order making the
correction will have to be sent to the State Government.
The provisions relating to Publication of an award apply to
the order making a correction in the award.
Section 6-A deals with the commencement of the award. The
general rule, as provided under sub-section (1) is that an
award becomes enforceable on the expiry of thirty days from
the date of its publication under section 6. Sub-,section
(3) provides for a slightly different period depending upon
the circumstances mentioned, therein. Sections 6-D and 6-G
are as follows
"6-D. Commencement and conclusion of
proceedings, Proceedings before a Labour Court
or Tribunal shall be deemed to have commenced
on the date of reference of a
74
dispute, to adjudication, and such proceedings
shall be deemed to have concluded on the date
on which the award becomes enforceable under
section 6-A."
"6-G. Power to transfer certain proceedings-
(1)The State Government may, by order in
writing and for reasons to be stated therein,
withdraw any proceeding under this Act,
pending before a Labour Court or Tribunal or
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10
transfer a proceeding from one Labour Court or
Tribunal to another Labour Court or Tribunal,
as the case may be, for the disposal of the
proceeding and the Labour Court or Tribunal to
which the proceeding is so transferred may,
subject to any special directions in the order
of transfer, proceed either de novo or from
the stage at which it was so transferred;
Provided that where a proceeding under section
6-E or section 6-F is pending before a
Tribunal, the proceeding may also be
transferred to a Labour Court.
(2) Without prejudice to the provisions of
sub-section (1) any Tribunal, if so
authorized by the State Government, may transfer
any proceeding under section 6-E or section 6-
F pending before it to any one of the
Labour Courts specified for the disposal of
such proceedings by the State Government by
notification in the Official Gazette and the
Labour Court to which the proceeding is so
transferred shall dispose of the same."
Sections 6-D and 6-G substantially correspond to sub-section
(3) of section 20 and section 33-B respectively of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act XIV of 1947).
It must be stated that a superficial reading of sub-section
(1) of section 6-G in isolation will give the impression
that the State Government has got two distinct and separate
powers, namely-
(a) to withdraw any proceedings under the
Act pending before a Labour Court or
Tribunal,; or
(b) to transfer the proceedings from one
Labour Court or Tribunal to another Labour
Court or Tribunal for disposal of the same.
It is on the basis of such a reading of the section that Mr.
Pai, the learned counsel, urged that there is an absolute
power in the State Government to withdraw an order already
passed referring a dispute for adjudication. This power’
according to the learned counsel, is distinct and separate
front the power given under the same section to the State
Government to transfer a proceeding from one Labour Court or
Tribunal to another. If we do not accept the contention of
Mr. Pai that section 6-G confers two such distinct and
separate powers, section 6-D will not assist the appellant.
It is only if we hold that the Government has a power to
withdraw simpliciter, the further question regarding the
stage upto which the power could be exercised. will arise
for consideration.
75
We have already pointed out that section 6 casts a duty on
the Tribunal, when a dispute has been referred to it, to
deal with it expeditiously and to submit its award to the
State Government. The State Government has also an
obligation to publish the award within thirty days of its
receipt. No doubt sub-section (4) of section 6 gives power
to the State Government, before publishing the award, to
remit the same for reconsideration. But still a duty is
cast upon the State Government to publish the award as
reconsidered by the Tribunal within thirty days of its
receipt. Section 6-A also gives certain powers toy the
State Government regarding the award, which normally becomes
enforceable under sub-section (1) on the expiry of thirty
days from the date of its publication.
Section 6-G, in our opinion, deals only with the power of
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10
the State Government to transfer a proceeding from one
Labour Court or Tribunal to another and for purposes of such
transfer to withdraw the proceedings from the Labour Court
or Tribunal from whom it is being transferred. We are free
to admit that the wording of sub-section (1) is capable of
being construed as conferring on the State Government a
power to withdraw any proceedings or to transfer a
proceeding from one Labour Court or Tribunal to another.
But having regard to the scheme of section 6-G, read in the
light of the other provisions referred to earlier, the
section will have to be interpreted as giving to the ,State
Government only a power to transfer a proceeding from one
Labour Court to another. When section 6 makes it obligatory
that an award has to be made by the Tribunal concerned, and
that it has to, be published by the State Government within
thirty days of its receipt and declare that the award on
publication becomes final, it is idle to expect that the
legislature intended to nullify the entire proceedings. by
conferring an absolute power of withdrawal on the State
Government under section 6-G. The proper way of reading
section 6-G is to limit the power of withdrawal, referred to
therein, only for the purpose of transferring the
proceedings from one Labour Court or Tribunal to another.
That the expression ’or’ in section 6-G(1) interposed
between ’withdraw any proceedings’. . . . or ’transfer a
proceeding’ will have tar be understood as ’and’. So read,
the power conferred under section 6-G on the State
Government is that of withdrawing any proceedings from one
Labour Court or Tribunal and transferring the same to
another.
Mr. Pai drew our attention to section 33-B of the Central
Act and emphasised that the said section is words
differently from section 6-G of the Act. According to him,
the wording of section 33-B clearly shows that the
withdrawal of any proceedings is only for transferring the
same to another Labour Court or Tribunal. On the other
hand, the counsel-pointed out that a different phraseology
has been used in section 6-G indicating the conferment of
two distinct powers. We have already referred to this
aspect and expressed the view that a superficial reading of
section 6-G will support the contention of Mr. Pai. If the
expression ’or’, as mentioned earlier, is read as ’and’, the
section does not present any difficulty. That having due
regard to the scheme of the statute and the purpose sought
to be served the expression ’or’ can be read under certain
circumstances as ’and’ as has been laid down
76
by this Court in Mazagaon Dock Ltd. v. The Commissioner of
Income-Tax and Excess Profits Tax.(1) Adopting the same
principle and having due regard to the object of section 6-
G, which essentially is only to confer in the State
Government a power to transfer a proceeding from one Labour
Court or Tribunal to another, the expression ’or’ has to be
read in section 6-G as ’and’, If so read, sub-section (1) of
section 6-G confers on the State Government only a power to
withdraw a proceeding from one Labour Court or Tribunal and
transfer the same to another. It is needless to state that
transfer of a proceeding can only be when it is pending
before A Labour Court or Tribunal.
Section 6-D, in our opinion, has no relevancy in construing
section 6-G. Section 6-D is enacted for a totally different
purpose. For instance section 6-E provides for conditions
of service etc. to remain unchanged in certain circumstances
during the pendency of proceedings. Similarly under section
6-F a question may arise whether an employer has contr
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10
avened the provisions of section 6-E during the
pendency of proceeding before a Labour Court or Tribunal.
It may be quite essential to consider whether any
proceedings were pending before a Labour Court or Tribunal.
For the purpose of considering the question whether ,any
proceedings were pending, the Act has created a fiction
under section 6-D by indicating the starting point of a
proceeding before a Labour Court as well as its conclusion.
The starting point of the proceedings has been fixed from
the date of the reference and its termination has been fixed
as the date on which the award becomes enforceable under
section 6-A. During this period broadly it has to be
considered that proceedings are pending before a Labour
Court or Tribunal. We need not refer to the other
provisions of the Act where the duration of the pendency of
proceedings may assume importance. Section 6-D can be
invoked only in--those cases. But it does not come into the
picture, as mentioned earlier, in construing section-6-G.
Mr. Pai referred us to the decision of this Court in The
Sirsilk Ltd., and Others v. Government of Andhra Pradesh &
Another(2), where the provisions of section 17 and 18 of the
Central Act were read in harmony and the State Government
was directed not to publish the award though its publication
was mandatory. We are not faced with ,such a situation in
the case before us. We have already referred to the fact
that in Adjudication Case No. 98 of 1960, arising out of
Reference No. 11, respondents 4 to 6 herein had requested
the Labour Court to exclude them from the said adjudication
on the ground that they are already covered by Adjudication
Case No. 93 of 1960, arising out of Reference No. 1. The
Labour Court passed an order on February 21, 1961, excluding
the said three workmen from Adjudication Case ’No. 98 of
1960. That means the said three workmen had no further
interest in the said Adjudication Case. If that is so, the
award passed on February 26, 1961, in the case arising out
of Reference No. 1 was perfectly correct and the publication
of the said award on May 6, 1961, was also in pursuance of
the mandatory provisions of the Act. ’There is no question
of any conflict between the two awards. Hence the appellant
cannot seek any assistance from the decision of this
(1) [1959] S.C.R. 843. (2) [1954] (2) S.C. R. 448.
77
Court in The Sirsilk Ltd., and Others v. Government of
Andhra Pradesh& Another(1) and it cannot ask for a writ of
mandamus directing the State Government to cancel the
publication of the award.
We are in agreement with the view of the High Court that the
appellant is not entitled to any relief, though for
different reasons. The appeal fails and is dismissed with
costs.
G.C Appeal dismissed.
(1) [1964] 2 S. C. R. 448.
78