WESTERN INDIA AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION Vs. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal from a judgment of a division bench of the High Court of Bombay cancelling a writ of prohibition issued by Coyajee J. against the Industrial Tribunal to which a dispute between the Western India Automobile Association and its workers had been referred under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, XIV of 1947.

(2.) THOUGH a number of points were raised before Coyajee J. and before the division bench, the principal question raised by this appeal relates to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal constituted under the Act to entertain the dispute which had been referred to it. The controversy is firstly as to the scope of the Act, i. e. , whether the Act has application to cases of private employers or is limited only to cases where either the Central or the Provincial Government, or a local authority is the employer, and secondly, as to whether the dispute as to reinstatement of certain dismissed employees is a matter which is referable to the Tribunal.

(3.) IN the Trade Disputes Act, VII of 1929, this expression was denned in Section 2 (c) in the following terms : 'employer' in the case of any industry, business or undertaking carried on by any department of any Government in British INdia, means the authority prescribed in this behalf, or, where no authority is prescribed, the head of the department. It was conceded by Mr. Setalvad that the definition given in Act VII of 1929 was a limited definition in relation to Government departments only. He, however, urged that the definition had been worded differently therein. The word "means" was not used in the beginning of the definition but was so put in the context that it clearly indicated that the definition was restricted to businesses or undertakings of departments of Government. IN Act XIV of 1947, however, the Legislature by saying "'employer' means" has made the definition exhaustive. IN our judgment, there is no such difference in the meaning of the two definitions given in the Act of 1929 and in the Act of 1947. IN one definition, the word "means" has been used after the industries had been particularized, and in the other it has been used in relation to those industries. The words "in relation" used in the definition make the intention of the Legislature quite clear and they indicate that it was in relation to those particular industries only that the expression "employer" was defined. This interpretation is also consistent with the phraseology employed by the Legislature in different sections of the Act. IN Section 18 it has been laid down that a settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings under the Act or an award which was declared by the appropriate Government to be binding shall be binding on all parties to the industrial dispute; and where a party referred to in Clause (a) or Clause (b) is an employer, his heirs, successors or assigns in respect of the establishment to which the dispute relates. It is difficult to apply this provision, in the Act to heads of Government department. The manner in which the section is drafted shows that disputes concerning all industrial concerns whether owned by Government or private person were included within the ambit of the Act.