NATIONAL TEXTILE CORPORATION (WBABO) LIMITED UNIT ARATI COTTON MILL Vs. THE LEARNED JUDGE, 2ND INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged an order passed under Sec. 15(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act as amended in West Bengal, on the ground that though the reference is being tried by a State Tribunal on a reference made by the State Government pursuant to a delegation under Sec. 39 of the Industrial Disputes Act, but the procedure that has to be followed is the Central Rules and not the State Rules and as such Sec. 15(2)(b) cannot be attracted. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sec. 39 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, does not empower the Central Government to delegate more than what it had; nor does it empower the delegatee to exercise its own proper. It only empowers the delegatee to exercise the power of the delegator and not more than that. What the delegator cannot do, by reason of delegation, the delegatee cannot do. He has relied upon a decision in the case of District Collector Chittoor and others Vs. Chittoor District Groundnut Traders Association, AIR 1989 SC 989, in support of his contention (paragraph 4 at page 992). He has also relied on a decision in the case of Scientific Advisor to the Ministry of Defence and others Vs. S. Daniel and others, 1990 (Supp.) SCC at page 374 (paragraph 12) in support of the same contention.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the workman, on the other hand, contends that the petitioners have not challenged the reference and the reference having been made by the State Government to the State Tribunal it is the State Rules, which is to be followed. A State Tribunal cannot follow Central Rules and as such the submissions made by Mr. Ghosh cannot be sustained. He further contends that Sec. 11 requires following of its Rules as it may deem fit and proper in the absence of any Rules. Since the State Tribunal cannot be governed by the Central Rules, therefore, Sec. 11 applies as if there is no Rule and then the State Tribunal is free to follow any Rule including the State Rules. He further contends relying on the decision in the case of Dr. (Smt.) Prem Chhabra Vs. State of M.P., 1989 Lab. IC 1075 that delegation under Sec. 39 empowers the State Government to exercise the authority of the Central Government and if it has exercised the same and had made a reference, the same cannot be questioned. He also relied on the decision in the case of Hotel Imperial New Delhi and others Vs. Hotel Workers' Union, 1959 (II) LLJ 544 at page 551 to contend that Sec. 10(4) empowers the Tribunal to grant interim relief. Even if it is not permitted under the Central Rules, still then Tribunal has power to grant interim relief.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the State, on the other hand, contends that the delegation under Sec. 39 is the delegation of the power of the appropriate Government and as soon it is so delegated, the State Government can exercise all powers as are available to it and as such Sec. 15(2)(b) is applicable. He relies on the decision in the case of Aajkaal Publishers Vs. Learned Judge, Second Labour Court and others, 1998 (II) CHN 327, in support of his contention.