JASWANT SUGAR MILLS LTD., MEERUT versus LAKSHMICHAND AND OTHERS

1962

!Cham Chand v. Union o}· India

Das Gupta, J.

242 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP.

valid and consequently, in rejecting the appellant's revisional application.

The appeal is dismissed. But, in view of the circumstances of the case we make no order as to costs. Though the appellant has failed in this appeal which was brought by him as a pauper, we make no order against him to pay the court-fee which would have been paid by him if he had not been permitted to appeal as a pauper.

Appeal dismissed.

1962

September 25.

JASWANT SUGAR MILLS LTD., MEERUT

v.

LAKSHMICHAND AND OTHERS

(B. P. SINHA, c. J., P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. N. WANCHOO, K. C. DAS GUPTA and J. C. SHAH, JJ.)

Indu.•trial Dispute-Dismi.sal of workmen-Application for permi>Bion before Conciliation OJ!ker-Direction of Conci liation Officer-Appeal to Appellate Tribunal, if maintainab/,e Grant of special leave-Competence-U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (U. P. 28 of 1947), 88. 3, 8-Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) A.ct, 1950 (48 of 1950), 88. 2 (c) cl. (iii), 4--Constitution of India, Art. 136.

The workmen of the appellant company resorted. to direct action in order to enforce their demands 'for bonus, leave etc. Thereupon, the company served charge sheets upon sixty-three workmen. The enquiry officer who investigated the charges found that all the workmen were guilty of sabotage and slow down strike and that they were liable to be dismissed. But as at that time a dispute between the company and its workmen relating to payment of bonus was pending before the Industrial Tribunal, the conditions of service of the workmen could not, by virtue of cl. 29 of the order issued in 1954 by the Governor

1962

Jaswant Sugar Mil Ltd.. lv!eerut v. Lakshmichand

I S.C.R.

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

243

ofUttar Pradesh under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, be altered nor the workmen discharged without the previous permission of the Conciliation Offi~er. An application was made to the Conciliation Officer for permission to disri1iss the workmen. The Officer granted permission in respect of only eleven workmen on the ground that the rest of the workmen were mere passive participants in the go-slow campaign. The compat'\" preferred an appeal to the Labour Appellate Tribunal but it was dismissed as incompetent on the ground that the C'.onciliation Officer wa'i not an authority within the meaning of s. 2 (c) (iii) of the Industrial disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950. The company then obtained special leave to appeal to the Supre1ne ~ourt against the direction of the Conciliation Officer and also against the order of the Labour Appellate Tribunal.

Held, that a Conciliation Officer under cl. 29 of the Order promulgated in 1954 uµder the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, I 94 7, has to act judicially in granting or refusing per~ n1ission to alter the terms of employment of workmen at the instance of the employer, but as he is not invested \Vith the judicial power of the State, he cannot be regarded as a tribunal within the meaning of Art. 136 of the Constitution· of In<lia. Consequently, an appr.al under that Article is not competent against the direction given by the Conciliation Officer.

Bharat Rank Ltd. v. Empwyees of Rlwrnt Bank LU., [1950] S. C. R. 459, Province of Bomba.y v. K. 8. Arfoa11i, [1950] S. C. R. 621, Atherton West & Co. LU. v. Snti JJfilf Mazdoor Union, [1953] S. C.R. 780 and I>urya Shan/.·ar Mehta v. Thakur Ray/1uraj Singh, [1955] l S. C.R. 267, relied on.

Held, further, that an "authority" under s. 2 (c) (iii) of the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, l<J:io, to b~ an industrial tribunal must be a body constitutrcl for the purpose of adjudication of industrial disputes under a law 1nadc liv the State; since a Conciliation Officer is not invf'sterl 'vith a;1y such po,ver, he can1tot be regarded as an "authority" "'ithin thr mC'aning of that section. Accordingly, an appeal ag·ainst the order of the Conciliation Officer is not maintainable undf'r s. 4 of the Ind11strial Disputes (Apprllate 'l'rih11na.l) Act, 19.10.

i9a .. 'isoon lf;-

.4lliance Flilk Mill8 Co. Ltrl. v .

. ~fill Jlrr:iluor

Sabha, [1955] I L. L. J. 70, referred to.

CrvIL APPrJLLATE .Jumson"r!ON : Civil Appeals

Nos. 37 and 38 of 1961.

244 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963]SUPP.

1962

.,,,.itswoot Sugar Mills Ltd., Meerut v. Lakshmichand

Appeals by special leave from the judgment and orders dated July 9, 1956, and May 9, 1956, of the Labour ·Appellate Tribunal of India, Lucknow, and the Additional Regional Conciliation Officer, Meerut, in Appeal No. III-111 of 1956 and P. D. Case No. 15 of 1956 respectively.

Veda Vyasa, S. K. Kapur, J. B. Dadachanji, Prem Nath Ghadha and Ganpat Rai, for the appel lants.

A. S. R. Chari, R. K. Garg, S. C. Agarwala

and P. C. Agarwala, for the respondents.

1962. September 25. The Judgment of the

Court was delivered by

Sh4k, J.

SHAH, ].-Two questions arise in limine in these

appeals:

ii i

(1) Whether an appeal may be entertained

in exercise of powers under Art. 136 of the Constitution the Conciliation Officer issued in disposing of an application under cl. 29 of the Order promulgat ed by the Governor ofUttar Pradesh under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ; and

direction of

against a

(2) Whether against the direction issued by the Conciliation Officer exercising authority under cl. 29 of the Order an appeal lay to the Labour Appellate Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950.

Tribunal under

the

It would be necessary to consider the merits of the appeal in the event of an affirmative answer on either of these questions.

Facts whii;h have a beanng on the preliminary

questions are briefly these :-

Jaswant Sugar Mills .Ltd.-hereinafter referred to as 'the Company'-owns factories at Meerut in the State of Uttar Pradesh for manufacturing sugar

1962

Jaswant 'iugar Mil/1 Ltd., Meerul v, Lakshmichand

Shah, J,

I S.C.R.

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

245

and straw boards. On December 13, 1955, the Company received a notice relating to demands for bonus, leave, retaining allowance etc., from the Action Committee of one of the Labour Unions of the work men employed in the Sugar Factory: It is the case of the Company that on December 26, 1955, there was a meeting of the workmen and certain employees exhorted the workmen to resort to "direct action" and in pursuance thereof the workmen adopted a "slow-down strike" which resulted in 'great reduction in the operations of crushing sugarcane, and produc tion of sugar. The Company thereupon served charge-sheets upon sixty-three workmen charging them individually and collectively for doing acts calculated to destroy the machinery of the factory and for deliberately adopting a policy of "go-slow" and refusing to attend work a5signed to them at the appointed time.

investigated

The Enquiry Officer who

the charges against the delinquent workmen, by his order dated J anu'!ry 9, 1958, held that all the workmen were guilty of "sabotage and slow-down strike" and were therefore liable to be dismi>sed. But at that time a dispute relating to payment of bonus was pending before the U ttar Pradesh State Industrial Tribunal in which the Company and the workmen were concerned, and the conditions of service of the workmen could not, by virtue of cl. 29 of the Order issued in 1954 by the Governor of U ttar Pradesh under the U. P Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, be altered, and the· workmen could not be discharged without the previous permission of the Conciliation Officer.

An application was accordingly submitted by the Company to the Regional Conciliation Officer, Meerut, for permission to dismiss the workmen who were, on the finding of the Enquiry Officer, concerned with "slow-down strike and other illegal tactics" adopted by them with a view to cause loss to the

1962

Jaswant Sugar Mills Ltd., Meerut •• Lakslmzichand

246 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP.

Company. The Conciliation Officer granted per mission in respect of only eleven workmen, for in his view, the remaining fifty-two workmen were mere "passive participants in the go-slow campaign", and that it "would not be fair and justifiable to grant permission-to dismiss those workmen from service". The Company preferred an appeal to the Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow, against the direction of the Conci!iation Officer refusing to grant permission to dismiss fifty-two workmen, but the appeal was rejected, because in the view of the Appellate Tri bunal the Conciliation Officer was not an "authority" within the meaning of s. 2 (c) cL (iii) of the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950, and the appeal was therefore incompetent. The Company has, with special leave, preferred appeals against the direction of the Conciliation Officer, and the order of the Labour Appellate Tribunal. The order of the Conciliation Officer is challenged on the ground that in refusing permission to dismiss fifty-two workmen, the Conciliation Officer ignored the principles settled by this Court and the Labour Appellate Tribunal in cases dealing with applications for granting permission to discharge employees under s. 33 of the Industrial In "the appeal against the order Disputes Act, 1947. of the Labour Appellate Tribunal, it is submitted that the Conciliation Officer was an "authority" within the meaning of s. 2 (c) cl. (iii) of the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950 and the direction made by the Conciliation Officer was a decision within the meaning of s. 4 of that Act.

Counsel for the workmen contended that the appeal against the direction given by the Concilia tion Officer is not maintainable because that officer exercising authority under cl. 29 of the Order promulgated in 1954 under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is neither a 'Court' nor a 'Tribunal' within the meaning of Art. 136 of the Constitution and no appeal lies to this Court against the impugned direction.

l s.c.R. SUPREM•E COURT REPORTS

247

Article 136(1) of the Constitution provides :

"Notwithstanding any/hing in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, 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".

1962

Jaswant Sugar Mi·

Ltd., Meerut v. Lalcshmiclumd

Shah, J.

invested with

By cl. (2) judgments, determinations, sentences and orders passed or made by any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces are exempt from the operation of cl. (1). This jurisdiction to Court is manifestly entertain appeals from judgments, decrees, determina tions, sentences or orders in causes or matters passed by courts and tribunals except those constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces. It is common ground that a Conciliation Officer exercising authority under cl. 29 of the Order made under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is not a "court", and the impugned direction does not amount to a In determining whether an judgment or decree. appeal still lies against the impugned direction of the Conciliation Officer, two primary questions fall to be considered:

( 1) whether the direction made by the Concilia tion Officer is a dete1mination or an order; and (2) ~hether the -Conciliation Officer is a 'tribunal' within the meaning of the Act? Reference

to the detailed provisions of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act and Orders made thereunder from time to time, will be made here after,. but it may suffice at this stage to observe that the Order made by the Governor ofUttar Pradesh in 1954 authorised the State Government by Noti fication in the Official Gazettee to appoint Concilia tion Officers, and by cl. 29 provided that during the pendency of any proceedings or proceedings before a Tribunal or an Adjudicator in

conciliation

248 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP.

1962

·aswant Sugar A1ills Ltd., Aleerut v. Lakshmichand

Sha.Ii, J.

respect of any dispute, an employer shall not alter the conditions of service to the prejudice of the work men concerned in such dispute or discharge or punish any workman concerned in such dispute, save with the express permission of a Conciliation Officer irrespec tive of whether the dispute is pending before a Board or the Tribunal or an Adjudicator.

The Conciliation Officer is bv cl. :W authorised during the pendency of any concilia'tion proceeding or proceedings before a Tribunal or an Adjudicator to permit the employer to alter to the prejudice of the workmen concerned in such dispute the conditions to them or to discharge or of service applicable punish the workmen concerned in such disputes. If the direction of the Conciliation Officer which operates proprio dgore to authorise or to deny to the Company the exercise of its powers under the common law to terminate the employment of its workmen, amounts to an order or determination within the meaning of Art. 136, an appeal with special leave would be maintainaple in this Court. The expression '!determination" in the context in which it occurs in Art. 136 signifies an effective expression of opinion which ends a controversy or a dispute by some authority to whom it is submitted under a valid law for disposal. The expression "order" must have also a similar meaning, except that it need not operate to end the dispute. Determination or order must be judicial or quasi-judicial : purely adminis trative or executive direction is not contemplated to be made the subject-matter of appeal to this Court. The essence of the authority of this Court being judicial, this Court does not exercise administrative or executive powers i.e. character of the power conferred upon this Court, original or appellate, by judicial, the determination its constitution being or order sought to be appealed from must have the character of a judicial adjudication. The Conciliation Officer is authorised by cl. 29 to grant or withhold

1962

Jaswant Sugar 1Vfilis Ltd., Mcerut v. Lakshmichand

Shah, J.

I S.C.R.

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

249

to determine

perm1ss10n the employment of a workman concerned in a pending dispute or to alter to his prejudice conditions of his service. Clause 29 severely restricts the right of the employer to termi the terms of the nate employment according to the right is made contract of employment, and exercisable upon. the direction of the Conciliation Officer if at the time when the right is sought to be exercised, a dispute .in which the employer and the employees are concerned, is pending before the Conciliation Officer or in an Industrial Tribunal. The true character of this direction must be. examined in the light of the nature of the authority vested in the Conciliation Officer and its impact upon the If the direction is purely rights of the parties. administrative, it will not be subject to appeal to this Court.

the

Q~estion whether, a decision is judicial or is purely admini.strative, often arises when jurisdiction of the superior courts to issue writs of certiorari is invoked. Often line of distinction between decisions judicial and administrative is thin : but. the principles for ascertaining the true character of the decisions are well-settled. A judicial decision is not always the act of a judge or a tribunal invested with power to determine questions of law or fact : it must however be the act of a body or authority invested by law with authority to determine questions or disputes affecting the rights of citizens and under a duty to act judicially. A judicial decision a.lways postulates the existence of a duty laid upon the authority to act judicially. Administrative are often invested with authority or power to determine ques rights of citizens. The tions, which affect authority may have to invite objections to the course of action proposed by him, he may be under a duty to hear the objectors, and his decision may seriously affect the rights of citizens but unless in arriving at . his decision he is required to act judicially, his decision

authorities

the

1962

want Sugar M.ills Ltd., Meerut v. Lakshmichand

Shah, J.

250 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1963) SUPP.

to act

judicially. Mukherjea, J.,

will be executive or administrative. Legal authority to determine questions affecting the rights of citizens, it is the does not make the determination judicial : duty to act judicially which invests it with that character. What distinguishes an act judicial from administrative is therefore the duty imposed upon the authority in The Province of Bombay v. K. S. Advani (1 ) observed at p. 670 "there cannot indeed be a judicial act which does not create o,r imposes obligations ; but an act, x x x x x x is not necessarily judicial be cause it affects the rights 0f subjects. Every judicial act presupposes the application of judicial process. There is well marked distinction between forming a personal or private opinion about a matter, and deter In the performance of an execu mining it judicially. tive act, the authority has certainly to apply his mind to the materials before him ; but the opinion he forms is a purely subjective matter which depends entirely upon his state of mind. It is of course necessary that he must act in good faith, and if it is established that he was not influenced by any ex traneous consideration, there is nothing further to be In a judicial proceeding, on the othrr said about it. hand, the process or method of application is diffe rent. "The judicial process involves the application of a body of rules or principles by the technique of a particular psychological method", vide Robson's Jt!stice and Administrative Law, p. 33. It involves a proposal and an opposition, and arriving at a decision upon the same on comideration of facts and circumstances according to the rules of reason and justice, vide R. v. London County Council('). It is not necessary that the strict rules of evidence should be followed : the procedure for investigation of facts or for reception of evidence may vary according to the requirements of a particular case. There need not be any hard and fast rule on such matters~ but the decision which the authority arrives at, must not be his 'subjective', 'personal' or 'private' opinion. (1) [1950] s.c.R. 621.

(2) [1931] 2 K. B. 215, 2SS.

1962

Jaswant .Sligar Afills ltd., Meirul v. Lakshmichand

Shah, J.

l S.C.R.

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

251

It must be something which conforms to an objective standard or criterion laid down or recognised by law, and the soundness or otherwise of the determination must be capable of being trstcd by the same external standard. This is the essence of a judicial function which differentiates it from an administrative func tion ; and whether an authority is required to exercise one kind of function or the other depends entirely upon the provisions of the particular enactment. x x x x x Generally speaking where the language of a statute indicates with ~ufficient clearness that the personal satisfaction of the authority on certain matters about which he has to form an opinion finds his jurisdiction to do certain acts or make certain orders, the function should be regarded as an executive function."

It may be observed that Mukherjea, J., was on the ultimate decision in the case, in the minority, but the principle enunciated by him had substantially the approval of the Court. Das, J., in the same case at p. 719 observed: "a person entrusted to do an adminis trative act has often to determine questions of fact to enable him to exercise his power. He has to consi der facts and circumstances and to weigh pros and cons in his mind before he makes up his mind to exercise his power just as a person exercising a judi cial or quasi-judicial function has to do. Both have to act in good faith. A good and valid administra tiw or executive act binds the subject and affects his rights or imposes liability on him just as effectively as a quasi-judicial act does. The exercise of an administrative or executive act may well be and is freque~t!y made dependent by. the Legislature upon a. condition or contmgency.wh1ch may involve a ques tion of fact, but the question of fulfilment of which may, nevertheless, be left to the subjective opinion or satisfaction of the .::xecutive authority".

To make a decision or an act judicial, the fol

lowing criteria must be satisfied:

1962

Jaswanl Sugar .NfillJ Ltd., lltfeerut v. Lakshmichand

Shah, J.

252 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP.

( 1)

(2)

(3)

it is in substance a determination upon investigation of a question by the applica tion of objective standards to facts found in the light of pre-existing legal rule;

it declares rights or imposes upon parties rights; obligations affecting. their civil and

that the investigation is subject to certain procedural attributes contemplating an opportunity of presenting its case to a party, ascertainmant of facts by means of evidence if a dispute be on questions of· fact, an~ if the dispute be on question of law on the presentation of legal argument, and a decision resulting in the disposal of the matter on findings based upon those questions of law and fact.

Applying these tests, there is

little doubt that the Conciliation Officer in granting or refusing pennis sion to alt.er the terms of employment of workmen, at the instance of the employer, has to act judicially. His decision is not made to depend upon any sub jective satisfaction; he is required to investigate and ascertain facts, apply objective standards to facts found, and to declare whether the employer makes out a case for granting permission to alter the terms of employment of his employees. The U. P. Indus• trial Disputes Act and the Order framed thereunder do not lay down any specific procedure, but the duty cast upon him to decide after investigating facts by the application of objective standards involves an obligation to evolve a procedure consistent with the purpose and nature of the enquiry, which assures to the disputing parties an opportunity to present their respective cases, and to substantiate the same by evidence and argument. Therefore the direction of the Conciliation Officer under cl. 29 of the Order, cannot be said to be purely administrative.

1962

Jaewant Sugar Afit Ltd. Afeerut . v. Lakshmidiand

Shah, J.

1 S.C.R. SUPREM.E COURT REPORTS

253

But every decision or order by an authority under a duty to act judicially is not subject to appeal to this Court. Under Art. 136, an appeal lies to this Court from adjudications of courts and tribunals only. Adjudication of a court or tribunal must doubtless be judicial: but every authority which by its constitution or authority specially conferred upon to act judicially, is not necessarily a it is required tribunal for the purpose of Art. 136. A tribunal, adjudication whereof is subject to appeal, must beside being under a duty to act judicially, be a body invested with the judicial power of the State. For" the purpose of ascertaining whether the Conc.iliatior Officer exercising powers under cl. 29 is investee with the judicial powers of the State, it is necessary to set out the nature of the powers and functions of the Conciliation Officer and the procedure, if any, prescribed for the exercise of those powers and func tions under the Order .issued by the Governor, and which was in force at the material time. A historical review of the emergence of the powers and functions of the Conciliation Officer in operation at the date when he passed the order impugned in these appeals has an important bearing. The Legislature of the United Provinces enacted the U.P. Industrial Dis putes Act, XXVIII of 1947, to provide "for powers to prevent strikes and lock-outs, to settle industrial incidental matters". By s. 3 disputes and for other of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, the Local Government was authorised, if in its opinion it was necessary or expedient so to do for certain specified ~urpo~es to rr_iake by gei;ier~l or . special order, provi sion, inter alia for appomtmg mdustrial courts and for referring any industrial dispute for conciliation or adjudication in in the Order.

the manner provided

The Governor ofUttar Pradesh on March 10 1948, issued an Order in exercise of the power~ conferred under ss. 3 and 8 of the U. P. Industrial

1962

:Jant Sugar Mills Ltd., Meerul v. :akrhmichand

Shah, J.

254 SUPREME COURT REP ORTS [1963] SUPP.

Disputes Act, 1947. By cl. 1 of the Order power was conferred upon the Provincial Government to constitute Conciliation Boards for settlement of indus trial disputes under the chairmanship of Conciliation Officers, and by cl. 2 the Provincial Government was authorised to appoint Conciliation Officers. By cl. 6 the Conciliation Board had to commence an inquiry into a dispute or matter brought before it and to endeavour to bring about a settlement of the same. Clause 7 prescribed the procedure to be followed by the Board in the course of the inquiry : the Board had to frame issues on points on which the parties were at variance and to endeavour to secure a settlement, of the dispute. If no amicable settlement was reached, the Board investigated the dispute and recorded an award together with the reasons thereof on the issues on which the parties were at issue. The award made by the Conciliation Board was subject to appeal to the Industrial Court constituted under cl. 10 of the Order. By cl. 18 the Conciliation Board was invested with certain powers of a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1903, such as enforcing attendance of witnesses, compelling pro duction of documents, inspection of any property or thing, including machinery etc. By cl. 19 provision was made for service of notice, summons, process or order issued by the Board in the manner prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. But these were the powers of the Conciliation Board, and not of the Conciliation Officer. The only statutory authority conferred upon the Conciliation Officer independently of the Board was authority under cl. 23 to permit modification of terms of employment or dismissal or discharge of workmen during the con tinuance of an enquiry under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act or appeal therefrom and pending the issue of the orders of the State Government upon the findings of the Board of Court. Under the, ~i1er promulgated in J 948, the Concihauon Board was invested with authority analogous to that

therefore,

l S.C.R.

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

255

1962

Jruwant Sugar Mills Ltd., Meerut v. Lakshmichand

Shah, J.

the

the

Industrial Disputes

Industrial of an Industrial Tribunal under Disputes Act, 1947. But the power to sanction discharge or dismissal of workmen during the continuance of the enquiry was vested exclusively in the Conciliation Officer, irrespective of whether the enquiry was pending before a Conciliation Board, or in appeal before the Industrial Court. This Order was superseded by fresh Order which was promul It was presumably because of the gated in 1951. enactment d (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950, by the Parliament which con ferred authority upon the Labour Appellate Tribunal to entertain appeals in certain matters against the awards and decisions of the Industrial Tribunals that the necessity of reorientation of the scheme for adjudication of labour disputes under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act arose. By the fresh Order rules were prescribed for constitution of Conciliation Boards, Industrial Tribunals and Adjudicators. By this Order a Conciliation Board of which the Conci liation Officer was to be the Chairman was only to endeavour to bring about a settlement of dispute before it. If a settlement was brought about; the Conciliation Board prepared a memorandum of terms of the settlement arrived at and the same was sub mitted to the Labour Commissioner of the State. Where no amicable settlement was secured, the Board made a report setting forth the steps taken for ascer taining the facts and circumstances relating to the disJ?ute and the attempts made for bringing about an amicable settlement. Power to make an award was taken ~way fron. the Conciliation Board, and was vested m the Industrial Tribunal. Powers exercis able. under the Code of Civil Procedure under the p;:v1?us Order were also taken away from the Con c1hat10~ Board.bµt the authority to alter conditions of serv1c~. d~mng the pendency of proceeding before the Conohation Offi.cer or. a Tribunal or an' Adjudi cator by cl. 23 remamed with the Conciliation Offi. cer e area concemc irrespective of the fact whether o

fth

.

d

1962

Jaswant Sugar Mills l.td., /1/eerur v. Lak!·hmichand

Shuh, J.

256 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP.

a dispute was pending before a Board, Tribunal or an Adjudicator.

This Order was superseded by a fresh Order made in 1954. The scheme of the Order made in 1954 was similar to the scheme of the Order made in 1951. Disputes could be referred under this Order to the Conciliation Board which was to consist of the Conciliation Officer appointed by the State Govern ment and two members-one representing each of the parties to the dispute-appointed by the Conci liation Officer on the recommendation of the parties. The function of the Board was to prepare a memo randum of a settlement, if any, reached before the Board or to report about the failure to bring about a settlement, but it had no power to make an award. By cl. 24 the Tribunal or the Adjndicator, bnt not the Board nor the Conciliation Officer, were vested with certain powers as were vested in the Civil Courts under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, such as summoning and enforcing the attendance of witnesses, requiring the discovery and production of documents, issuing commissions in the examination of witnesses and inspection of any property or thing. Clause 29 (omitting the proviso thereto which is not material) was enacted as follows :-

"During the pendency . of any conciliation proceedings or proceedings before the Tribunal or an Adjudicator in respect of any dispute and, where sub-clause (3) of clause 5 applies, for a further period of 30 days (excluding holidays but not annual vacations observed bv courts subordinate to the High Court), an employer shall not-

( a) alter to the prejudice of the workmen con

cerned in such dispute th~ conditions of service applicable to immediately before the commencement of such proceed ings, or

them

1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS

257

(b) discharge or punish, whether such punish ment is by dismissal or otherwise, any workman concerned in such dispute, save with the express permission in writing of a Conciliation Officer of the area concerned, irrespective of the fact whether the <lispute is pending before a Board or the Tribunal or an Adjudicator ; "

1961

/uwant Sugar Milli Ltd., Murlll v. LakshmichMi

SlvJr, /.

The scheme of the Order made by the Governor in 1954 was substantially the same as the Order which was promulgated in year 1951. The Conciliation Officer who was to be appointed by a Notification under cl. 2 by the State Government had ·two-fold functions. He was a member of the Conciliation Board and he functioned in that capacity under els. 4, 5, 6 and 7 for the purpose of bringing about an amica ble settlement of a dispute. Authority to entertain to the Conciliation Officer applications submitted about an industrial dispute, existing or apprehended and to constitute a Conciliation Board were adminis trative duties in his capacity as a member of the Conciliation Board. His power independently of the Board was invested in him only by cl. 29. The true nature of an order made by a Conciliation Officer under cl. 23 of the Order promulgated in 1951-and which was in terms substantially the same as cl. 29 of the 1954 Order, was examined by this Court in Atherton ltest & Go. Ltd. v. Suti Mill .Mazdoor ) where Bhagwati, J., announcing the Judgment Union( 1 of the Court observed :

"It is clear that clause 23 imposed a ban on the ?ischarge or dismissal of any workman pendmg the enquiry of an industrial dispute rn;fore the Board or an appeal before the Indus tnal Court and the employer, his agent or manager could only discharge or dismiss the workman with the wr;tten permission of the Regional Conciliation Officer x concerned. Even if such written permission

x

x

0) (1953] S. C. R. 780.

1962

J~wanl Su:ar Mills LtC., Me1rut v. I.Jdshmichand

Shnh, J,

258 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP.

was forthcoming the employer, his agent or manager might or might not discharge or dismiss the workman and the only effect of such written permission would be to remove the ban against the discharge or dismissal of the work man during the pendency of those proceedings. The Regional Conciliation Officer x x x concerned would institute an enquiry and come to the conclusion whether there was a prima f acie case made out for the discharge or dis missal of the workman and the employer, his agent or manager was not actuated by any improper motives or did not resort to any unfair practice or victimisation in the matter of the proposed discharge or dismissal of the workman. But hf' was not entrusted, as the Board or the Industrial Court would be, with the duty of corning to the conclusion whether the discharge or dismissal of the workman during the pendency of the proceedings was within the rights of the employer, his agent or manager. The enquiry to be conducted by the Regional Conciliation Officer x x x x x concerned was not an enquiry into an industrial dispute as to the non-employment of the workman who was sought to be discharged or dismissed; which industrial dispute would only arise after an employer, his agent or manager discharged or rlismissed the workman in acccirdance with the written permission obtained from the officer concerned. This was the only scope of the enquiry before the Regional Conciliation Officer x x x x x x concerned and the effect of the written permission was not to validate the discharge or dismissal but merely to remove the ban on the powers of the rmployer, his agent or manager to discharge or dismiss the workman during the pcndency of the proceed ings. Once such written permission was granted by him, that order made or direction

_,

1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS

259

1962

J aswant Suzar M Ltd., M1mJ1 v. Lakshmithond

Shah, J,

once

x x x x

issued by him was to be final and conclusive and was not to be questioned by any party thereto in any proceedings. The only effect of to prevent any party to the clause 24 (1) was pending proceedings the from challenging written permission thus granted by the officer the written concerned. permission was granted by the of:licer concerned, the ban against the discharge or dismissal of the workman would be removed and the em· player, his agent or manager could in the exer cise of his discretion discharge or dismiss the workman but in that event an industrial ·dispute within the meaning of its definition contained in section 2 (k) of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947, woulCl arise and the workman who had been discharged or dismissed would be entitled to have that industrial dispute referred to the Regional Conciliation Board for enquiry into the same." The essential characteristics of a 'tribunal' within the meaning of Art. 136 were examined by Mahajan, J., and it was observed that in the Bharat Bank Ltd. v. Employees of Bharat Bank Ltd.(') "tribu· nals which do not derive authority from the sovereign power cannot fall within the ambit of Art. 136. The condition precedent for bringing a tribunal within the ambit of Article 136 is that it should be constituted by the State. Again a tribunal would be outside the ambit of Art. 136 if it is not invested with any part of the judicial functions of the State but dis charges purely administrative or executive duties." This view was adopted by the Court in Durga Shankrir 3frht1t v. Thakur Raghuraj Singh(') where Mukherjea, J., observed : "it is now well settled by the majority decision of this Court in the case of Bharat Bank Ltd. v. Employees of the Bharat Bank Ltd.(') that the expression "Tribunal" as used in Art. 136 does not mean the same thing as "Court" but

(1)

(1950] S. C. R. 459.

(2) .(1955] l S. C.R. 267.

\

260 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [i963] stJPP.

1962

J_.,t Suzar Milt; Lid., Murul T. l~1hmi<"-i

includes, within its ambit, all adjudicating bodies. provided they are constituted by the State and are invested with judicial as distinguished from purely administrative or executive functions."

"'·"· J.

the

The duty to act judicially imposed upon an authority by statute does not necessarily clothe the authority with the judicial power of the State. Even administrative or executive authorities are often by virtue of their constitution, required to act judicially rights of in dealing with question affecting citizens. Boards of Revenue, Customs Authorities, Motor Vehicles Authorities, Income-tax and Sales-tax Officers are illustrations prima facie of such adminis trative authorities, who though under a duty to act judicially, either by the express provisions of the statutes constituting them or by the rules framed thereunder or by the implication either of the stat1,1tes or the powers conferred upon them are sti!l. not delegates of the judicial power of the State. Their primary function is administrative and not judicial. In deciding whether an authority required to act judicially when dealing with matters affecting rights of citizens may be regarded as a tribunal, though not a court, the princ'ipal incident is the investiture of the "trappings of a court"--such as authority to determine matters in cases initiated by parties, sitting in public, power to compel attendance of witnesses and to examine them on oath, duty to follow funda mental rules of evidence (though not the strict rules of the Evidence Act), provision for imposing sanctions by way of imprisonment, fine, damages or mandatory or prohibitory orders to enforce obedience to their commands. The list is illustrative ; some, though not necessarily all such trappings will ordinarily make the authority which is under a duty to act judicially, a 'tribunal'.

Mahajan, J., in Bharat Bank Ltd. v. Employees

of Bharat Bank Ltd.(1) observed at p. 47G :

(I) (1950] S.C. R. 459.

1962

Jaswant Sugar Mills Ltd., Meerut v. Lakshmichand

Shah, J.

1 S.C.R.

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

261

"As pointed out in picturesque

language by Lord Sankey L. C. in Shell Co. of Australia v. Federal Commissi(frter of 'l.'axution('), there are tribunals with many of the "trappings of a Court" which, nevertheless, are not Courts in It the strict sense of exercising judicial power. seems to me that such tribunals though they are not full-fledged Courts, yet exercise quasi judicial functions and are within the ambit of the word 'tribunal' in article 136 of the Consti tution. It was pointed out in the above case that a tribunal is not necessarily a Court in this strict sense because it gives a final decision, nor because it hears witnesses on oath, nor because two or more contending parties appear before it between whom it has to decide, nor because it gives decisions which affect the rights of subjects, nor because there is an appeal to a Court, nor because it is a body to which a matter is referred by another body. The intention of the Consti tution by the use of the word 'tribunal' in the article seems to have been to include within the scope of article 136 tribunals adorned with similar trappings as Court but strictly not com ing within that definition."

Reverting to the Order issued by the Governor of Uttar Pradesh in 1954 it is manifest that no procedure is prescribed for the investigation to be made by the the Conciliation Officer, under cl. 29. He is not required to sit in public: no formal plead ings are contemplated to be tendered; he is not empowered to compel attendance of witnesses, nor is he restricted in making an enquiry to evidence which the parties may bring before him. The Conciliation Officer is again not capable of delivering a determi· native judgment or award affecting the rights and obligations of parties. He is not invested with powers similar to those of the Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure for enforcing attendance of

(1) [1931] A. C. 275.

1962

Jriswant Sugar Afills Ltd., Meerut v. Lakshmichand

Shah, J.

262 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP.

any person an<l examining him on oath, compelling production of documents, issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses and other m<itters. He is concerned in granting leave to determine whether there is a 1iri 11ir~ frt~ie case for dismissal or discharge of an employee or for altering terms cf employment, and whether the employer is actuated by unfair motives; he has not to decide whether the proposed step of disch<irge or dismissal of the employee was within the rights of the employer. His order merely removes a statutory ban in certain eventualities, laid upon .the common law right of an employer to dis miss, discharge or alter the terms of employment according to con tract between the parties. The Conciliation Officer has undoubtedly to act judicially in dealing with an application under cl. 29, but he is not invested with the judicial power of the State: he cannot therefore be regarded as a 'tribunal' within the meaning of Art. 136 of the Constitution.

We are not in this case called upon to decide whether the proceeding for a writ may lie under Art. 226 of the Constitution before a competent High Court against the order of the Conciliation Officer. We are concerned only to deal with the limited ques tion whether he is a 'tribunal' within the meaning of Art. 136 of the Constitution having the attributes of the investment of the judicial powers of the State. It may be pertinent to note that provisions similar to cl. 29 of the Order issued under the U. P. Indus trial Disputes Act, HJJ7, are to be found in s. 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. By virtue of s.33 an employer during the pendency of any conciliation proceeding before a Conciliation Officer or a Board or of any proceeding before a Labour Court or Tri bunal or National Tribunal in respect of an indus trial dispute is prohibited save with the express permis sion in writing of the authority before which the proceeding is pending, from altering to the prejudice of the workmen concerned in such a dispute, the

1962

J.uwant Su.gar Mi Ltd., Meerut v. Lakshmichand

Shah, J.

1 S.C.R.

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

263

conditions of service applicable to them immediately before the commencement of the proceeding and from discharging or punishing, whether by dismissa 1 or otherwise, any workman concerned in such dispute for any misconduct connected with the dispute. Both the enactments place restrictions upon the power of the employer to terminate rmployment during the pendency of a dispute in which the employer and employee are concerned, and which is pending before a statutory authority. But whereas under cl. 29 the power to grant permission is exercisable only by the Conciliation Officer, the power under s. 33 is exer cisable by the authority before whom the proceeding is pending. Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act provides, in so far as it is material, that "where an employer contravenes the provisions of section 33 during the pendency of proceedings before a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, any employee aggrieved by such contravention, may make a comp laint in writing, in the prescribed manner to such Labour Court, Tribunal or N ationa] Tribunal and on receipt of such complaint that Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal shall adjudicate upon the complaint as if it were ·a dispute referred to or pending before it, in accordance with the provisions of this Act and shall submit its award to the appro priate Government and the provisions of this Act shall apply accordingly". Contravention by an employer of the provisions of s. 33 when the proceed ing is pending before the Conciliation Officer or the Board does not attract s. 33-A and does not make it an in~ustrial dispute c_apa ble of being adjudicated upon m accordance with the provisions of s. 33-A. Action taken by an employer during the pendency of conciliation. procee?ings coi:t~a.ry' .to s. 33, may t~erefore s.ustam a cla1m for adjud1cat1on, only if the d1~pute ansmg thereunder be referred by the appro pnate Government to an Industrial Tribunal. For breach of s. 33 of the Indt,!striaf Disputes Act or cl. 29 of the Order by the Governor of U. P. no

1962

Jaooant Sugar Mills Ltd., Meerul v. Lakshmichand

Shah, J.

264 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP.

penalty may be imposed by the Conciliation Officer. It is thus manifest that the Conciliation Officer does not hold the status of an industrial tribunal in exer cising powers under s. 33 of the Industrial Disputes therefore Act or cl. 29 of the U.P. Order. be held that an appeal under Art. 136 of the Consti tution to this Court is not competent against the direction given by the Conciliation Officer exercising power under cl. 29 of the Order issued by the Gover nor of U. P. under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

It must

The question whether an appeal lay to the Labour Appellate Tribunal under the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 48 of 1950, does not present much difficulty in its solution. By s. 4 of Act 48 of 1950, the Central Government is autho rised to constitute Labour Appellate Tribunals for hearing appeals from the awards or decisions of industrial tribunals in accordance with the provisions of the Act; an 'Industrial Tribunal' is defined in s. 2 (c) as meaning-:

"(i) any Industrial Tri bun al constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (XIV of 1947); or

(ii)

in relation to cases where an appeal lies from any court, wage board or other autho- . rity set up in any State under any law relating to the adjudication of industrial disputes made, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, by the legis- . 1 lative authority of the State_ to any other court, board or authority exercising appel late jurisdiction within the State; or

(iii)

in relation to other cases, where no appeal lies under any law referred to in sub-clause (ii), any court, board or other authority ~et up in any State under such law,"

. ~ ... -

1962

/a:itwnt Suga' ~l!ill.t · Ltd., .Aleerul v .. ·~ Lo/;,J hmicliofitl

Shah,

·J.

>, l S.C.R. SUPREl\fE COURT REPORTS 265 . Conciliation Officer functioning· under a: 20- is not an Industrial Tribunal coristitutcd urider ·the ;Indus trial Disputes Act, 104 7, his authority being derived from the appointment made by the State of Uttar Pradesh under the U. P. Industrial Di~putcs Act,· HJ-! 7, Nor is any provision made in the U. P .. Indus trial Disputes Act, l\J-17, or Orders made ~thereunder for an appeal to anr similar authority against the direction made by the Conciliation Officer in , exercise of the power conferred ,under cl. 20. An appeal lies under s. 4 of the Act.48 of 1950, against the direction of a Conciliation ·Officer· only if he is a Court or Authority •. The, Legislatu_re _has_,used,in, cl._,(iii), the ' expression "any court, board or other authority";· the····· context indicates 'that' the word "other 'authority" must be read' ejuadem geniris ·with Colli-tor Board. The right .to appeal conferred ,bys. 4 is only against awards or decisions, and a Conciliation Officer makes no award, nor even a decision. . His function is . not to"deliver a definitive judgment affecting' the rights of the parties before him. He is not invested with power to .adjudicate· industrial disputes.· It is true that he is constituted under a statute which relates to adjudication of industrial disputes,· !mt, 'his func tions are purely incidental to industrial' adjudication. - His power is not of the same character as , that of an Industrial Court. or Board or Tribunal. Jn our view. an 'authority' under s. 2 (c\ (iii) to · b~ an· indmtrial tribunal must be a body. constituted for t.he purpose of adjudication' of industrial disputes under a faw' made by a State. '.~The Conciliation , Officer not having been invesiedwith any such power, he, cannot be regarded as an' 'authority' within the meaning of s. 2(e) (iii) of the Industrial ·Disputes··' (Appellate Tribunal) Act. The Labour Appellate Tribunal has consistently held, arid we think rightly, that ari appeal against the order ofa Conciliator is not maintainable_ under s. 4 ·of the · Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Ac.t, vide Sassoon & Alliance Sill~ .Mill.~ _. Co. Ltd v • .Jli1f .Jfazdoor cabba (1

).

_ .. (I) [1955] I L.L.J. 70.

266 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP.

1962

Both the appeals therefore fail and are dismis

11.SWant Sugar Mills Lli., Medrut v. Lakshmicha nd

Shah, J,

1962

sed with costs. There will be one hearing fee.

A ppools dismissed.

UNION TERRITORY OF TRIPURA, AGARTALA v. GOPAL CHANDER DUTTA CHOUDHURY (B. P. SINHA, c. J., P. B. GAJENDRAG.ADKAR, K. N. WANCHOO, K. C. DAS GUPTA and J. c: SHAH, JJ.)

Public Servant-Temporary employment-Termination of service-Appeal dismiss~An ex-convict for theft-Whether ttrmination amounted to dismissal-Scope of enquiry-If same a.o in Iudustrial Dispute-Central Services (Temporary Service) Ruks, 1949, r.5-0onstiti.ttion of Iudia, Art. 311.

The respondent was appointed as a constable in the In Tripura Police Force. The employment was te!llporary. (Temporary accordance with r. 5 of the Central Services Service) Rules, 1949, his services were terminated by giving one respondent appealea. The Appellate month's notice. The Authority wrote to him that as he was an ex-convict for theft nothing could be done for him. The respondent filed: a writ petition challenging the order of termination. The Judicial "ommissioner held that the order was one of dismissal as punishment on the ground that the respondent was an "ex convict" and that as no reasonable opportunity was given to the to show cause, the protection of Art. 311 was respondent not afforded to him and the order ·tenninating the respondents employment was invalid.

Held, that the respondent had r.ot been dismissed by way of punishment and there was· no violation of Art. 311(2). 'The order in terms merely terminated the service of the responiient; there was nothing in it to suggest that -the termination was on account of the respondent being an "ex-convict". It could 11ot be in the circumatanceo of this case inferred that an ~ of