MODERN TEXTILE MILLS PRIVATE Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of Notification No. 6667-SLP-54/34846, dated 10-12-1954, industrial disputes existing between the textile mills and factories and other allied textile factories including embroidery, lace-making, printing and finishing, situated in the district of Amritsar including Chheharta on the one hand and the workers of the textile industry on the other were referred under Section 10 of the Industrial disputes Act to the Second Industrial Tribunal, Punjab, Amritsar. The dispute related to five items which were specified in the aforesaid notification. On 18-3-1955, one of the items of dispute was withdrawn by means of a notification of the aforesaid date and was referred separately to the same Tribunal by means of another notification of the same date. While the disputes were pending before the aforesaid Tribunal, the Modern Textile Mills, Verka, the Kailash textile Mills, Amritsar, Messrs Ram Lal Gura Mal Textile Mills, Chheharta and the indian Woollen Textile Mills, Chheharta took some action with regard to the employees in contravention of Section 33 of the Act and the workers' union filed complaints to the Tribunal under Section 33a of the Act. By means of two notifications No. 1788-C-LP-56/19345 and No. 1788-C-LP56/ 19347 issued on 114-5-1956, and appearing in the Punjab Gazette dated the 15th of May, 1956, the Punjab Government amended the previous three notifications dated 10-12-1954 and 18-3-1955, so as to exclude the reference for adjudication of the matters in dispute concerning all textile mills and factories and other allied textile factories including embroidery, lace-making, printing and finishing, situated in the district of Amritsar including Chheharta except relating to the matters in dispute concerning certain factories specified in the notifications. As a result of the aforesaid modification the disputes with regard to the Indian woollen Textile Mills, Modern Textile Milk, Kailash Textile Mills and Messrs Ram Lal gura Mal Textile Mills were excluded from the reference. The term of the Second industrial Tribunal, Punjab, later came to an end with tilts result that the Punjab government, by its notification dated 28-6-1956, reconstituted the Second industrial Tribunal, Punjab, Amritsar, and on 5-7-1956, issued a notification No. 4715-C-LP-56/948 which provided as under : under Section 10 (1) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Governor of punjab is pleased to direct that the Tribunal now constituted under Notification No. 4715-C-LP-56/353, dated 28-6-1956 shall hear and dispose of all the references including complaints under Section 33-A of the said Act made to the previous tribunal constituted under Notification No. 7444-S/5096-C-LP-55/19038, dated 23-7-1935 and which have remained undisposed of on 30-6-1956. " the obvious effect of this notification was that the complaints which were originally made under Section 33a of the Act were referred by the Punjab Government to the Industrial Tribunal as if they were "industrial disputes" capable of being referred under Section 10 of the Act. The mills in respect of which the complaints had been made submitted to the Tribunal that the complaint's could nnt be treated as industrial disputes and the Punjab Government had no jurisdiction to refer them to the Tribunal under Section 10 of the Act. The Tribunal repelled the said objection and found that the complaints had been properly referred as disputes and that the. Tribunal had the jurisdiction to decide the same. Five petitions have been made to this Court under Article 226 of the constitution of India and they are as under:

(2.) "industrial dispute" is defined in Section 2 (k) of the Act as under:

(3.) PROPERLY interpreted, the section only means that when the employers contravene the provisions of Section 33 during the pendency of proceedings before a Tribunal, any employee aggrieved by such contravention has got the right to make a complaint in writing to that Tribunal and that complaint is to be adjudicated upon as if it were a dispute referred to or pending before the Tribunal. The section does not however, turn the dispute actually into an industrial dispute. The Tribunal is required to adjudicate upon the complaint as if it were a dispute referred to it or pending before it, but the fiction of law involved in this section cannot be taken farther than the limits prescribed in the section itself and cannot turn the corn-plaint into an industrial dispute capable of being referred under section 10 of the Act. Only those disputes which are actually covered by the definition of the words "industrial dispute" as given in Section 2 (k) can be referred by the Government to the Tribunal under Section 10 of the Act, and if any particular dispute does not fall within the ambit of the definition of the "industrial dispute" it cannot obviously be the subject of a reference by the Government. Complaints are only individual disputes and affect only the employees regarding whom provisions of Section 33 have been contravened. There is no doubt that if a complaint is made to the Tribunal before whom the industrial dispute was previously pending and during the pendency of which the employers have acted in contravention of Section 33, that particular Tribunal has to adjudicate upon the complaint as if it were a dispute referred to or pending before it. This, however, does not mean that the complaint automatically becomes an industrial dispute capable of being referred by the Government under Section 10 of the Act to any Industrial Tribunal. We are therefore of the opinion that the references made by the Government in respect of the petitioners in the five cases covered by this judgment are beyond the jurisdiction of the Government and the tribunal has no power to hear and decide the same.