Vishwamitra Press Karyalaya Vs. The
Workers of Vishwamitra Press  INSC 62 (2 December 1952)
BHAGWATI, NATWARLAL H.
MAHAJAN, MEHR CHAND DAS, SUDHI RANJAN
CITATION: 1953 AIR 41 1953 SCR 272
U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, ss. 3,
4-U. P. General Clauses Act, 1904, s. 10-Industrial Tribunal, whether a "
Court " Period fixed for making award expiring on holiday-Award pronounced
on next working day-Validity of award.
The time prescribed for making an award under
the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, expired on the 9th June, 1951. The
Government extended the period up to 30th June, 1951. The 30th June was a
public holiday and 1st July was a Sunday and the Industrial Tribunal pronounced
its award on the 2nd July:
Held, that an Industrial Tribunal to which a
dispute is referred under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is a "
Court " within the meaning of s. 10 of the U.P. General Clauses Act, 1904,
and, as the 30th June and 1st July were holidays, the award pronounced on the
2nd July was not invalid on the ground that it was not pronounced within the
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal
No. 65 of 1952.
Appeal from an award dated 17th November,
1951, made by the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India, Calcutta, in Appeal -No. Cal.
280 of 1951.
K. P. Khaitan (Harnam Das, with him) for the
H. B. Asthana for the respondents.
Gopalji Mehrotra for the Intervener.
1952. December 2. The Judgment of the Court
was delivered by BHAGWATI J.-This is an appeal by special leave against the
decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta, upholding the award made
by the State Industrial Tribunal, Uttar Pradesh, with certain modifications.
An industrial dispute arose between the
appellant, the Vishwamitra Press Karyalaya, Kanpur, and the respondents, the
workers of the Vishwamitra Press as represented by the Kanpur Samachar Patra
Karamchari Union, Kanpur, in regard to the alleged victimisation of certain
workmen under the guise of 'retrenchment. That industrial dispute was referred
to the Industrial Tribunal, by a notification dated the 24th April, 1951. The
time for making the award expired on the 9th June, 1951, and on the 9th June.
1951, a further notification was issued extending the time for making the award
up to the 30th June, 1951. The 30th June, 1951, was a public holiday and the
1st July was a Sunday. The Industrial Tribunal made its award on the 2nd July,
1951, and pronounced it in open court on that day. It was however thought by
the Uttar Pradesh Government that the award was beyond time and invalid and on
the 18th July, 1951, a notification was issued extending the period up to the
3rd July, 1951. This award was challenged by the appellant before the Labour
Appellate Tribunal. The Labour Appellate.
Tribunal negatived the Contentions of the
appellant. The appellat applied 274 for special leave which was granted by this
Court on the 21st December, 1951, limited to the following grounds:
" (1) The Government had no power to
extend the time of the making of award after the expiry of the time originally
fixed, and the award made by the Adjudicator after such time is illegal, ultra
vires, inoperative and void.
(2)In any case the State Government I had
extended the time for making the award till 30th June, 1951, and the
Adjudicator's award made after that date is void.
(3)That the extension of time by the
Government on. 21st July, 1951, after even the time extended previously had
expired, was ultra vires, and it could not make a void award a valid
award." The industrial dispute which arose between the appellant and the
respondents was referred by the Uttar Pradesh Government to the Industrial
Tribunal in exercise of the powers conferred by sections 3 and 4 of the Uttar
Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Uttar Pradesh Government had in
exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 (d) of the Act promulgated an
order inter alia providing for the adjudication of the industrial disputes referred
by it to the Industrial Tribunals. Paragraph 16 of that order ran as under :-
" The Tribunal or the Adjudicator shall hear the dispute and pronounce its
decision within 40 days (excluding holidays observed by courts subordinate to
the High Court) from the date of reference made to it by the State Government,
and shall thereafter as soon as possible supply a copy of the same to the
parties to the dispute, and to such other persons or bodies as the State
Government may in writing direct.
Provided that the State Government may extend
the said period from time to time." Paragraph 9 which prescribed the
powers and functions of Tribunals inter alia provided:- 275 "(9). The
decision shall be in writing, and shall be pronounced in open court and dated
and signed by the member or members of the Tribunal, as the case may be, at the
time of pronouncing it." It was not disputed before us that the original
period calculated in accordance with paragraph 16 above expired on the 9th
June, 1951, and the Uttar Pradesh Government validly extended the period up to
the 30th June, 1951. It was however contended that the Industrial Tribunal
should have made its award on the 30th June, 1951, and not on the 2nd July,
1951, as it purported to do. It was urged that the provision as to excluding
holidays observed by courts subordinate to the High Court which obtained in
paragraph 16 above did not apply when the period was extended up to a
particular date. It would apply only if the period was extended by a particular
number of days when for the purpose of the computation of those days the
holidays would have to be excluded in the manner therein mentioned. The Uttar
Pradesh Government having extended the period up to the, 30th June, 1951, it
was submitted that the award, should have been made by the 30th June, 1951,
and, not later and having been made on the 2nd July, 1951, was therefore beyond
time and invalid.
This argument might well have prevailed but
for the provisions of section 10 of the U. P. General Clauses Act, 1904. That
section provides:- " Where, by any United Provinces Act, any act or
proceeding is directed or allowed to be done or taken in any court or office on
a certain day or within a prescribed period, then, if the court or office is
closed; on that day or the last day of the prescribed period, the act or
proceeding shall be considered as done or taken in due time if it is done or
taken on the next day afterwards on which the court or office is open."
The Industrial Court was closed on the 30th June, 1951, which was declared a
public holiday. The 1st July, 1951, was a Sunday and it was competent to the
'Industrial Court to pronounce its decision on the next 276 afterwards on which
the Industrial Court was n, i.e., the 2nd July, 1951. Prima facie therefore
award which was pronounced on the 2nd July, 1, was well within time.
The only thing which Shri Khaitan counsel for
the appellant urged before us therefore was that the Industrial Court was not a
court within the meaning of section 10 of the U. P. General Clauses Act,
"The court" according to his submission could only be construed mean
a court in the hierarchy of the civil courts the State and an Industrial Court
did not fall that category. We are unable to accept this intention of Shri
Khaitan. The Uttar Pradesh industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was an Uttar Pradesh
t. The General Order dated the 15th March, 1951, which provided inter alia for
the reference of the industrial dispute for adjudication and the manner in
which it was to be adjudicated, was promulgated by e U. P. Government in
exercise of the powers conferred upon it by section 3 (d) of the Act. Paragraph
(9) of the General Order provided for the decision pronounced by the Industrial
Tribunal in open court and we fail to understand how it could ever beged that
the Industrial Tribunal was not a court within the meaning of section 10 of the
U. P. General clauses Act. If the Industrial Tribunal was thus a court within
the meaning of section 10 of the U. P. General Clauses Act the court was closed
on the 30th ane, 1951, as also on the 1st July, 1951, and the diction could be
pronounced by the Industrial Court on i.e next day afterwards on which it was
open, i.e., on ne 2nd July, 1951. In our opinion therefore the decision which
was pronounced on the 2na July, 951, 'was well within time and was valid and
binding' in the parties.
The above decision is determinative of this
appeal, and the appeal will therefore stand dismissed with costs.
Agent for the appellant: B. P. Maheshwari.
Agent for the respondents and the intervener:
C. P. Lal.