HOCHTIEF GAMMON versus STATE OF ORISSA & ORS.

HOCHTIEF GAMMON versus STATE OF ORISSA & ORS.

The Government's refusal to include Hindustan Steel Limited as a party and failure to consider the issue of liability for bonus or to take into account the relevant terms of contract constituted an unlawful omission to consider relevant matters and a misdirection in law. The executive order is unsustainable and must be reconsidered with regard to all relevant facts.

Parties
Appellant: HOCHTIEF GAMMON; Respondents: STATE OF ORISSA & ORS.; Respondent No. 4: Hindustan Steel Limited
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
04 September 1975
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From the Judgment and Order Dated November 28, 1968 of the Orissa High Court in O.j.c. No. 152 of 1964
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Industrial Disputes, Reference of Industrial Disputes, Necessary and Proper Parties, Executive Decision Scrutiny
Labour and Industrial Law Industrial Disputes Reference of Industrial Disputes Necessary and Proper Parties Executive Decision Scrutiny

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HOCHTIEF GAMMON

Appellant

STATE OF ORISSA & ORS.

Respondents

Hindustan Steel Limited

Respondent No. 4

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From the Judgment and Order Dated November 28, 1968 of the Orissa High Court in O.j.c. No. 152 of 1964

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the State Government erred in refusing to include Hindustan Steel Limited as a party to the industrial dispute reference regarding bonus payable to workers.
  2. 2 Whether the Government's decision to not amend the reference and not frame the issue of liability for bonus was lawful under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act.
  3. 3 Whether the Court can scrutinise executive orders for failure to consider relevant matters or for lack of reasons.

Ratio Decidendi

The Government's refusal to include Hindustan Steel Limited as a party and failure to consider the issue of liability for bonus or to take into account the relevant terms of contract constituted an unlawful omission to consider relevant matters and a misdirection in law. The executive order is unsustainable and must be reconsidered with regard to all relevant facts.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • The Government of Orissa is directed to reconsider the matter and take a decision in the matter of reference in the light of relevant facts.
  • No order as to costs.