DABUR P LTD Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON a difference of opinion between two of the learned single judges of this court these two writ petitions have been referred to us. The difference of opinion is on the point as to whether in view of the amended provision of Article 226 (3) of the Constitution, Article 136 of the constitution is any other remedy to a person who feels aggrieved by an award of an industrial tribunal made on a reference under the Industrial disputes Act. so as to bar entertainment of a writ petition wherein such an award is challenged. While our learned brother Roy, J, in Regent estates Limited -V- Second Labour court, 1977 C. L. J. 401 81 C. W. N. 777, has held that Article 136 provides for such a remedy, our learned brother Mookerji, j, is unable to share the said view. The two writ petitions having been thus referred to us, we have heard counsel for the parties on the preliminary issue as to whether on the provisions of article 136 such writ petitions are barred or not and we propose to decide the preliminary issue by this judgment.

(2.) IN both the writ petitions, the subject matters of challenge are awards made by the respective industrial tribunals on references being made to them under the Industrial Disputes act. The Industrial Disputes Act provides for no appeal or revision as against the awards so made nor any such remedy is specifically provided for by any other statute or statutory prevision though no doubt the Supreme Court in its discretion may grant special leave to a party aggrieved by such an award to appeal to the Supreme Court against an award so made. The short question that has been debated before us and on which there is the difference of opinion between the learned judges sitting singly is as to whether Article 136 of the Constitution which provides for such an appeal constitutes "any other remedy" contemplated by Article 226 (3) of the Constitution so that such a remedy being provided for as an alternative remedy the writ petition challenging the award cannot be entertained before such a remedy ii exhausted.

(3.) ARTICLE 226 of the Constitution has undergone material chanse by the 42nd Amendment of the Constitution. Prior to the amendment under sub-Article (1) the High Court could issue an appropriate writ not only for the enforcement of any of the fundamental rights but also for any other puroose. After the amendment though the High court's power to issue a writ for enforcement of the fundamental rights has been preserved, material limitations have been imposed on exercise of power to issue writs for any other purpose. Those words 'for any other purpose' are no longer there in sub-Article (1) Instead thereof, the High Court is now authorised to issue an appropriate writ either (1) for the redress of any injury of a substantial nature by reason of the contravention of any other provision of the Constitution or any provision of any enactment or ordinance or any order, rule, reflation, bye-law or other instrument thereunder, or (2) for the redress of any injury by reason of any illegality in any proceedings by or before any authority under any provision referred to in (1) above where such illegality has resulted in substantial failure of justice. These are the added clauses (b) and (c) of Article 226 (1 ). A further limitation has been imposed in regard to issue of a writ for such purposes by sub-Article (3) which provides :