Judges: H.J. Kania, C.J., Saiyid Fazl Ali, M. Patanjali Sastri, M.C. Mahajan and B.K. Mukherjea, JJ.

Facts:

Appellant, is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act. Its employees made certain demands and being dissatisfied with the unfavourable response from the appellant / bank, they called for a strike from work. Bank in return served notices on them to resume work, failing upon which, it proceeded to discharge a number of employees.

The Central Government constituted a Tribunal consisting of three persons for the adjudication of industrial disputes in banking companies under Section 7 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

This is an appeal by special leave from the determination of the said industrial dispute by the Industrial Tribunal appointed under Ordinance VI of 1949.

Issues:

(i) Whether the word 'tribunal' in Article 136 of Constitution has been used in the same sense as 'Court' or whether it has been used in a wider sense?

(ii) Whether the word 'determination' in Article 136 of Constitution includes within its scope the determinations made by Industrial Tribunals or other similarly constituted bodies or whether it has reference only to determinations of a Court or a tribunal of a purely judicial character?

(iii) Whether Supreme Court has jurisdiction to grant special leave to appeal against the determination of an Industrial Tribunal?

Laws:

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 136 - Supreme Court may grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India.

Contentions:

Appellant

(i) Whenever a tribunal, whether exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions, determined a matter in a judicial manner, then such a determination is within Article 136 of Constitution.

(ii) An Industrial Tribunal has no administrative or executive functions, its duty is to adjudicate on an industrial dispute, i.e., to act as a Judge, on certain kinds of disputes between employers and employees and that its functions are of a judicial nature.

(iii) Plain words of the Article 136 should not be given a narrow meaning where the intention of the Constitution was to confer the widest power on this Court.

(iv) As between private employers and employees and even in certain cases between Government and its employees, the decision of the Tribunal was binding on the Government. Government had no

power either to affirm, modify or reject it. All that it was authorised to do was to announce it and by its declaration give it enforceability. This fact, however, could not affect the question of appealability of the determination under Article 136 of Constitution.

(v) Powers should be exercised by Supreme Court wherever there is a miscarriage of justice by a determination of any tribunal.

Respondent

(i) If any tribunal, whether administrative, domestic or quasi-judicial, acts in excess of its jurisdiction, then it can be controlled by the High Court under the powers conferred on them by Article 226 by the issue of a writ of certiorari.

(ii) If the Industrial Tribunal in this case could be proved to have trespassed beyond the limits of its statutory jurisdiction, then the remedy lies elsewhere and not by a petition of special leave under Article 136.

(iii) The word 'tribunal' in juxtaposition to the word 'court' could only mean a tribunal which exercised judicial functions of the State and did not include within its ambit a tribunal which had quasi-judicial or administrative powers.

(iv) Article 136 of Constitution does not contemplate or include within its scope an appeal against an award of an Industrial Tribunal which is not vested with, and cannot exercise, judicial powers, and the decision of which cannot, therefore, rank as a judicial determination.

(v) Supreme Court cannot be called upon to exercise the powers of an appellate Court in respect to the decision of a tribunal which is really a part of the administrative machinery of the Government.

Analysis:

Industrial Tribunal - Whether akin to Court

I. Functions and duties of the Industrial Tribunal are very much like those of a body discharging judicial functions, although it is not a Court.

II. Rules framed by the Tribunal require evidence to be taken and witnesses to be examined, cross-examined and re-examined. Industrial Dispute Act constituting the Tribunal imposes penalties for incorrect statements made before the Tribunal.

III. Powers of the Industrial Tribunal in some respects are different from those of an ordinary civil court. It has jurisdiction and powers to give reliefs which a civil Court administering the law of the land (for instance, ordering the reinstatement of a workman) does not possess in the discharge of its duties.

IV. The fact that its determination has to be followed by an order of the Government which makes the award binding, or that in cases where Government is a party, the legislature is permitted to revise the decision, or that the Government is empowered to fix the period of the operation of the award do not alter the nature and character of the functions of the Tribunal.

V. Tribunal, therefore, is discharging functions very near to those of a Court, although it is not a Court in the technical sense of the word.

'Determination' in Article 136 of Constitution - Whether includes determinations made by Industrial Tribunals

I. The essence of judicial determination is that nothing further remains to be done except the enforcement of the judgment, a step which is compelled automatically by the law of the land.

II. Industrial Tribunal has no power to make a final pronouncement which would proprio vigore be binding on, and create rights and obligations between the parties.

III. It is for the appropriate Government to declare the award to be binding. Award can really become operative only when the date of its commencement and the period of its duration are fixed, and it is for the Government and Government alone to fix the same.

IV. With regard to the other class of cases, where the Government itself is one of the parties to the dispute, the position is still worse. An award in such cases is always subject to the contingency of being rejected or modified by the legislature before whom it could be placed for consideration at the option of the Government.

V. Where a contingency like this is attached to an award, it can never be regarded as a final or binding decision which is of the essence of a judicial proceeding.

VI. This shows the real nature of the Tribunal and it is not and could not be suggested that the Industrial Tribunal is a Tribunal which exercises judicial functions.

VII. Therefore, determinations made by Industrial Tribunals cannot be termed as a 'determination' falling within the ambit of Article 136 of the Constitution.

Supreme Court - Whether has jurisdiction to entertain an application for the leave to appeal against the decision of Industrial Tribunal

I. Court has power to issue writs of certiorari and prohibition in respect of the work of the Tribunal. The only question is whether there is a right of appeal also.

II. Wording of Article 136 of the Constitution is wide enough to give jurisdiction to the Court to entertain an application for leave to appeal. It is obvious that having regard to the nature of the functions of the Tribunal, Supreme Court will be very reluctant to entertain such an application.

III. Determination of an Industrial Tribunal does not become complete and binding unless and until it is declared to be so by the appropriate Government.

IV. Till the Government makes such declaration, neither of the parties to the dispute can have any real reason for filing an appeal. An appeal, if it lies, could be filed after the determination has been declared binding.

V. Article 136 of the Constitution, therefore, does not contemplate a determination given by the Industrial Tribunal.

Dissent: M.C. Mahajan, J.

I. Word 'tribunal' in Article 136 of Constitution has to be construed liberally and not in any narrow sense.

II. An Industrial Tribunal inasmuch as it discharges functions of a judicial nature in accordance with law comes within the ambit of Article 136 of Constitution and from its determination an application for special leave is competent.

Conclusions:

I. Functions and duties of the Industrial Tribunal constituted under IDA are very much like those of a body discharging judicial functions, although it is not a Court.

II. Article 136 of the Constitution does not contemplate a determination given by the Industrial Tribunal.

Important Precedents:

Pritam Singh v. The State MANU/SC/0015/1950