B.B.Rajwanshi vs State Of U.P. & Ors

Supreme Court8 April 1988E.S. Venkataramiah · N.D. Ojha

SCC(1988) 2 SCC 415
Neutral1988 INSC 100
AIRAIR 1988 SC 1089
SCR[1988] 3 SCR 469

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

1. Sub-section (4) of section 6 of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 confers unguided and uncontrolled power on the State Government to remit awards passed by quasi-judicial authorities for reconsideration, and this power lacks the statutory limitations imposed on similar review or remission powers granted to courts or arbitrators under other statutes. Such unguided power is arbitrary and violates Article 14 of the Constitution. 2. A power to remit an award by an executive authority for reconsideration cannot be exercised without statutory limitations corresponding to those found in Order 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure or section 16 of the Arbitration Act, 1940; the absence of such limitations makes the power susceptible to arbitrary exercise and mischief, particularly in simple disputes raising no issues of national economy, social justice, or grave consequences. 3. Where the State Government is itself the owner of an industry subject to an industrial dispute, conferring uncontrolled and unguided power on that same State Government to remit an award for reconsideration creates particular danger of arbitrary exercise against a party in whose favour the award has been made, and such power cannot be upheld on the ground that it can be ameliorated by reading in requirements of notice, hearing, or reasons. 4. The absence of any provision corresponding to section 6(4) of the U.P. Act in the Central Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 demonstrates that the power of remission is not necessary to the functioning of industrial dispute resolution, and this absence has caused no inconvenience to the public.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

448; P. Sambamurthy & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr., [1987] 1 S.C.C. 362 and Star Paper Mills Mazdoor Sangh & Ors. v. Star Paper Mills Ltd., Saharanpur & Ors., [1974] Allahabad Law Journal 71, referred to.

V.E. Thamas & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., [1978] Allahabad Law Journal 1118, disapproved.

& CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 864 of 1987.

From the Judgment and Order dated 23.5.1986 of the Allahabad High Court in C.M.W.P. No. 13975 of 1985.

M.K. Ramamurthi and A.K. Sangal for the Appellant. Anil Dev Singh, G.B. Pai, O.P. Sharma, Mrs. Shobha Dikshit, R.C. Gubrela, K.R. Gupta and R.K. Sharma for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATARAMIAH, J. The appellant has questioned in this appeal by special leave the constitutional validity of sub- section (4) of section 6 of the U.P. Industrial Disputes, Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and also the validity of the Order dated December 5, 1984 passed by the Government of Uttar Pradesh remitting an award passed by the Labour Court, Meerut for reconsideration by it.

The appellant was an employee of the Management, M/s. Electra (India) Ltd., Meerut-Respondent No. 5 in the above appeal. The services of the appellant were terminated by the Management by its Order dated April 4, 1977 and the said termination led to an industrial dispute. The State Government by its Order dated May 5, 1979 made under section 4-K of the Act referred the said dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court, Meerut. The question which was referred to the Labour Court read as follows:

"Whether the termination/removal from work of the employee Shri B.P. Rajwanshi by the employers by their Order dated 4.4.1977 is justified and/or legal? If not, to 474 what benefits/damages is the concerned employee entitled to and with what other details?"

On the basis of the pleadings filed by the parties, the following issues were framed by the Labour Court:

1. Was Shri B.B. Rajwanshi not a workman as defined in the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act? If so has this court jurisdiction to try this case?

2. Did Shri B.B. Rajwanshi not make efforts to minimise the losses due to unemployment?

3. To what relief, if any, is Shri B.B. Rajwanshi entitled?

4. Has Shri B.B. Rajwanshi been retrenched? If so, how does it affect the case?

After recording the evidence adduced by the parties and hearing the arguments the Labour Court held, (i) that the appellant was a workman as defined in the Act, (ii) that the termination of the services of the appellant was illegal and

(iii) that the appellant was entitled to be reinstated in his post with continuity of service and also to the payment of backwages and other benefits. The Labour Court accordingly passed an award on August 2, 1984 and forwarded it to the State Government. Instead of publishing the award in the Official Gazette, as required by sub-section (3) of section 6 of the Act, the State Government passed an Order dated December 5, 1984 under section 6(4) of the Act which read as follows:

"GOVERNMENT OF UTTAR PRADESH

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free