Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4
PETITIONER:
M/s. U. P. ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO., LTD.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
THE WORKMEN OF M/s. S. N. CHOUDHARY,CONTRACTORS AND ANOTHER
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
08/03/1960
BENCH:
WANCHOO, K.N.
BENCH:
WANCHOO, K.N.
GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B.
CITATION:
1960 AIR 818 1960 SCR (3) 189
ACT:
Industrial Dispute-Tyibunal deciding issue not referred to
it--jurisdiction-U.P. Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (XXVIII
Of 1947), ss. 34 (Proviso) 5, 8.
HEADNOTE:
The appellant company used to employ Messrs. S. M. Chou-
dhary as its contractors for doing certain work for it and
the contractors in their turn used to employ some workmen to
carry out the work which they took on contract. A dispute
having arisen between the contractors and their workmen an
application was made before the conciliation board by the
workmen in which both the company and the contractors were
parties and four matters were referred, namely, non-grant of
bonus for two years, non-grant of festival holidays, non-
fixation of minimum wages of those workmen at par with the
workmen of the company and non-abolition of the contract
system. As conciliation failed the Government referred the
dispute to the Industrial Tribunal under the U.P. Industrial
Disputes Act in which only three points out of the four
mentioned above were referred and the question of non-
abolition of the contract system was not referred. The
parties to this reference were the contractors and their
workmen and not the appellant company. By a subsequent
notification, however, the Government impleaded the Company
as a party to the dispute but did not amend the previous
referring order by
190
adding the fourth point of dispute which was before the
conciliation board, namely, the non-abolition of the
contract system. The Industrial Tribunal framed a number of
issues the most important of which was whether the workmen
concerned were the employees of the appellant company or of
the contractors and came to the conclusion that those
workmen were in fact and in reality the employees of the
company. On appeal by the company by special leave,
Held, that on such a reference there could be no
jurisdiction in the tribunal to decide the question whether
these workmen were the workmen of the company or of the
contractors, for such a question was not referred to the
tribunal.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE, JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 481 of 1958.
Appeal by special leave from the Award dated June 29, 1957,
of the State Industrial, Tribunal U.P. Allahabad, in Ref.
No. 98 of 1956.
M.C. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India, S. N. Andley,
J. B. Dadachanji, Rameshuar Nath and P. L. Vohra, for the,
appellants.
A. D. Mathur, for respondent No. 1.
G. C. Mathur and C. P. Lat, for respondent No. 2.
G. N. Dikshit and C. P. Lal, for the intervener.
1960. March, 8. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
WANCHOO, J.-This is an appeal by special leave against the
order of the Industrial Tribunal, Allahabad. The appellant
is the U. P. Electric Supply Co. Ltd., Lucknow, (hereinafter
called the company). It appears that the company used to
employ Messrs. s M. Choudhary (hereinafter referred to as
the contractors) as its contractors for doing certain work
for it. The contractors in their turn used to employ a
number of persons to carry out the work which they had taken
on contract. A dispute arose between the contractors and
their workmen in 1956 and an application was made on June 6,
1956, by the workmen before the conciliation board. To this
application both the company as well as the contractors were
parties and four matters were referred by the workmen to the
conciliation board, namely, (i) non-grant of bonus for the
years 1953-54 and 1954-55; (ii) nongrant of festival
holidays; (iii) non-fixation of minimum wages of these
workmen at par with the
191
workmen employed by the company; and (iv) nonabolition of
the contract system. Efforts at conciliation failed and
thereupon the Government of Uttar Pradesh made a reference
to the Industrial Tribunal under the U. P. Industrial
Disputes Act, No. XXVIII of 1947, (hereinafter called the
Act). In this reference only three points were referred out
of the four which were before the conciliation board,
namely, those relating to bonus, festival holidays and
payment of wages to these workmen at par with the workmen of
the company. The fourth point which was raised before the
conciliation board (namely, non-abolition of the contract
system) was not referred. The parties to this reference
were two, namely-(i) the contractors and (ii) their workmen.
The appellant was not a party to this reference. On August
13, 1956, another notification was issued by the U. P.
Government under ss. 3, 5 and 8 of the Act by which the
company was impleaded as a party to the dispute referred by
the notification of July 31, 1956. It is remarkable,
however, that the matters of dispute which were specified in
the reference dated July 31, 1956, were not amended as they
could have been under the proviso to s. 4 of the Act, by
adding the fourth point ’of dispute before the conciliation
board, namely, the non-abolition of the contract system.
When the matter came up before the industrial court it
framed a number of issues; and the first and most important
issue ran thus: "Are the workmen concerned employees of the
U. P. Electric Supply Co. Ltd., Lucknow or of Messrs. S. M.
Chaudhary, contractors ? "
The main objection of the company was that the dispute, if
any was between the contractors and their employees and that
there was no dispute between the company and its workmen.
It was further objected that there was no valid or legal
order of the Government referring any dispute between the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4
company and its workmen to the tribunal and therefore the
tribunal had no jurisdiction. On the merits it was urged
that the workmen concerned were not the workmen of the
company and there was no relationship of employer and
employee between the company and these workmen and therefore
the company could not be regarded
192
as a party to the dispute between the contractors and
their workmen.
It is therefore clear that the main question which was
considered by the tribunal was whether the workmen concerned
were the workmen of the company or of the contractors. As
the tribunal itself says, " the crux of the whole case was
whether the workmen concerned were the employees of the
company ". The tribunal went into the evidence in this
connection and came to the conclusion that these workmen
were in fact and in reality the employees of the company.
The main contention on behalf of the company before us is
that even assuming that the Government had power under s. 5
read with cl. 12 of G. O. No. U-464 (LL)XXXVI-B-
257(LL)/1954, dated July 14, 1954, to implied the company as
a party, the main issue decided by the tribunal was not
referred to it and the tribunal could only decide the three
matters of dispute included in the order of reference of
July 31, 1956. Therefore, in so far as the tribunal went
beyond the, three matters of dispute specified in the
reference and decided the question whether the workmen
concerned were in the employ of the company or of the
contractors it was acting without jurisdiction as this
matter was never referred to it.
We are of opinion that this contention must prevail. As we
have already pointed out, there were four matters before the
conciliation board including the question of non-abolition
of the contract system. Further before the conciliation
board not only the contractors but the company was also a
party, for obviously the question of non-abolition of the
contract system would necessitate the presence of the
company as a party to the proceedings. When however the
Government referred the dispute to the tribunal on July 31,
it did not include the fourth item which was before the
conciliation board relating to the non-abolition of the
contract system among the matters in dispute. It also did
not include the company as one of the parties to the
dispute, for the reference-order refers only to two parties
to the dispute, namely, the contractors and their workmen.
On such a reference there could be no jurisdiction in
193
the tribunal to decide the question whether these workmen
were the workmen of the company or of the contractors, for
such a question was not referred to the tribunal. It is
true that on August 13, 1956, the company was impleaded as a
party to the dispute referred by the notification of July 31
; but the matters in dispute remained unmended, and the
question of non-abolition of the contract system or the
question whether these workmen were the employees of the
company in fact and in reality was not included in the
matters of dispute by amendment under the proviso to s. 4 of
the Act. In these circumstances it is immaterial to
consider whether the impleading of the company as a party on
August 13, 1956, was legal and valid or not. Assuming that
it was legal and valid, the fact remains that issue No. 1
set out above by us which is undoubtedly the crux of the
question in this case was not referred to the tribunal at
all and did not arise out of the three matters of dispute
specified in the reference order of July 31, 1956. In these
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4
circumstances the order of the tribunal by which it held
that these workmen were the workmen of the company was
beyond its jurisdiction. The entire order of the tribunal
is directed against the company and must therefore be set
aside in whole as without jurisdiction and we need not
express any opinion on the merits. We therefore allow the
appeal and set aside the order of the tribunal against the
appellant. In the circumstances we pass no order as to
costs.
Appeal allowed.
25
194