UNION COMMERIAL BANK LIMITED Vs. THEIR WORKMEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these appeals the question whether the Industrial Tribunal ( Bank Disputes) had jurisdiction to make the awards has been directed by the Ct. to be tried as a preliminary issue. The decision depends on the true construction of Ss. 7, 8, 15 and 16 Industrial Disputes Act. On this question, the agreed statement of facts shown that by a notfn. of the Govt. of India dated 13-6-1949, the Central Govt. constituted an Industrial Tribunal for the adjudication of industrial disputes in banking cos. consisting of Mr. K. C. Sen, Chairman, Mr. S. P. Varma and Mr. J. N. Mazumdar. A second notfn. dated 24-8-1949 was thereafter issued as follows:

(2.) The jurisdiction of the Tribunal of the aforesaid three persons to make the award is disputed on two grounds. (1) That when Mr. Chandrasekhara Aiyar's services ceased to be available as mentioned in the agreed statement of facts, the remaining two members had to be re-appointed to constitute a Tribunal. (2) That when Mr. Chandrasekhara Aiyar began to sit again with Mr. Sen and Mr. Mazumdar from the forenoon of 20-2-1950, it was imperative to issue a notfn. constituting a tribunal u /S. 7 of the Industrial Disputes Act. The argument is that in the absence of Mr. Chandrasekhara Aiyar the two members had no jurisdiction to hear anything at all without the appropriate notfn. and that Mr. Chandrasekhara Aiyar's services having ceased to be available on 23-11-1949, he cannot sit again with the other two members to form the Tribunal in the absence of a notfn. u /S. 7.

(3.) In order to appreciate the correct position, it is necessary to consider the scheme of the Industrial Disputes Act. It envisages the establishment of a Conciliation Board, a Ct. of Inquiry and a Tribunal for adjudication. Relevant portions of Ss. 5, 6, 7, 8, 15 and 16 of the Act which only are material for the present discussion run as follows :