Skip to content


United Chini Mill Mazdoor Federation and anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLabour and Industrial
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1962)IILLJ719All
AppellantUnited Chini Mill Mazdoor Federation and anr.
RespondentState of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Excerpt:
- - it is now well settled that in exercise of its jurisdiction a high court does not, at the instance of any person, decide the validity or invalidity of any statutory notice or any provision of law, unless and until the person moving the court can show that that person has in presenting a cause of action based on a grievance which requires redress.v. bhargava, j.1. by this petition under article 226 of the constitution the petitioners, uttar pradesh chini mill mazdoor federation and hind mazdoor sabha, uttar pradesh branch have sought the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing a notification dated 9 jane 1961 ssued by the government of uttar pradesh under section 3(c) of the uttar pradesh industrial disputes act. an additional prayer was made for the issue of a writ in the nature of prohibition to be issued to the other three opposite parties, who were constituted as members of a committee appointed under the notification dated 9 june 1961, prohibiting them from entertaining or deciding any dispute arising out of the implementation of the recommendations of the wage board in pursuance of the notification dated 27 april 1981. when.....
Judgment:

V. Bhargava, J.

1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioners, Uttar Pradesh Chini Mill Mazdoor Federation and Hind Mazdoor Sabha, Uttar Pradesh branch have sought the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing a notification dated 9 Jane 1961 ssued by the Government of Uttar Pradesh under Section 3(c) of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act. An additional prayer was made for the issue of a writ in the nature of prohibition to be issued to the other three opposite parties, who were constituted as members of a committee appointed under the notification dated 9 June 1961, prohibiting them from entertaining or deciding any dispute arising out of the implementation of the recommendations of the wage board in pursuance of the notification dated 27 April 1981. When this petition came up for hearing before us it appeared to us that it was necessary for the petitioners to satisfy the Court, as a preliminary point, that a situation had arisen where the petitioners would be entitled to obtain a writ from this Court for the purposes for which they moved this Court. It is now well settled that in exercise of its jurisdiction a High Court does not, at the instance of any person, decide the validity or invalidity of any statutory notice or any provision of law, unless and until the person moving the Court can show that that person has in presenting a cause of action based on a grievance which requires redress. In the present case it appears to as that the petitioners have come to this Court prematurely at a stage when they are unable to show that any necessity has arisen for considering the validity of the Impugned notification dated 9 June 1961.

2. The case of the petitioners is that certain recommendations were made by a wage board in respect of which the State of Uttar Pradesh issued a notification dated 27 April 1961 giving effect to these recommendations. One of the clauses of the recommendations which under that notification had to be given effect to related to adjustments to be made in respect of the existing emoluments of workmen when fitting them into the new grade to be implemented under that notification. Paragraph 12 of the notification laid down, inter alia, that:

The adjustment of existing emoluments into various grades specified in the order shall be made initially by the employers, as far as possible, in consultation with the representatives of the workmen. If there are any disputes between the employers and the workmen in this behalf, such disputes shall be referred to a special committee or committees to be constituted by Government for the purpose.

3. It was asserted in the supplementary affidavit filed in support of the petition that as many Rs. 1,291 industrial disputes had arisen which would be governed by this Para. 12 of the notification dated 27 April 1961, and that they had been sent through the Assistant Labour Commissioner of the region concerned to the Labour Commissioner and Labour Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh. There is, however, no further Information as to what orders have been passed by the State Government on these papers. In order to understand the nature of the disputes, we called upon Mr. S.C. Khare, learned Counsel for the petitioner, to give further information to as whereupon be produced before us as an example a letter dated 5 June 1961 sent by the Secretary of the Pilibhit Sugar Mills Labour Union, Pillibhit, to the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Bareilly. The letter mentioned that copies of representations by twelve persons named therein were being sent to the Assistant Labour Commissioner to be forwarded to the Secretary to Government, Uttar Pradesh, Labour (A) Department, Lucknow, for necessary section. Amongst the papers produced before us were also copies of some of these representations which were on printed forms containing other entries in type and signed by the workman concerned. Mr. Khare Informed us that this form had been got printed by the local onion which was one of the constituents of one of the two federations who are the petitioners in this petition. Having examined these representations we find that all they contain is a representation by a workman addressed to the general manager of the sugar factory concerned requesting him to correct his designation and grade and deduction of house-rent adding that if that is not done he would be compelled to take his dispute through the union to the machinery provided for the purpose. No further information has been supplied to us as to what action was taken by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Barellly, Labour Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh, or the Secretary to Government of Uttar Pradesh, Labour (A) Department, on the letters forwarding such representations to them. It is to be noticed that neither the representations by the workmen nor the forwarding letters sent by the constituent union anywhere mention that the demand. made by the workmen was ultimately refused by the employer. In fact the papers produced before us show only that numerous representations were sent to the employers by numerous workmen and copies of these representations without any prayer were sent to the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Bareilly, for being forwarded to the Secretary to Government of Uttar Pradesh, Labour (A) Department, for necessary action. On the face of it no action can be taken on those representations. The representations were addressed to the employer by their workmen and there was no information that any of them was rejected or that the prayer made in that representation had not been accepted in full. Not until the representations are rejected in full or in part can it be said that any Industrial dispute had come into existence. As long as there is a request by a workman to an employer and that request is not decided at all, it cannot be held that any dispute has come into existence. In this particular case further no information exists on the record or in the papers produced before us how these requests or representations addressed by the workmen to their imployer have been dealt with by the employer or whether the employers have deliberately neglected to deal with them which neglect might be treated as refusal of the request. It is significant that in the forwarding letter sent by the constituent union to the Assistant Labour Commissioner there has no mention at all that the representations by the various workmen mentioned in ' hat letter had been rejected or that by any their means the employer had refused that request. It is, therefore, not possible to hold that any industrial dispute at all existed or that any such. disputes were sent up by the constituent unions to the Labour Commissioner or the Secretary to Government of Uttar Pradesh, Labour (A) Department. No doubt in the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners by the Secretary of petitioner 1 it is mentioned that what were sent to the Labour Commissioner of the regions concerned were disputes sponsored by the constituent unions of petitioner 1 but the documents produced before us as an example show that the deponent in making this assertion in the affidavit wrongly Interpreted the effect of the letters sent by the constituent unions to the Assistant Labour Commissioners concerned which were accompanied by the copies of the representations addressed by the workmen to their employer. On the documents filed or produced, the only view possible is that upto that date no dispute had at all arisen and the situation was that representations by workmen to their employer for correction of their designations and grade and deduction of house-rant or such other similar matters were pending with the employer who was told that otherwise the workmen would be compelled to take their disputes through the union to the machinery provided for the purpose. In these circumstances, it seems to us that these petitioners have come up to this Court by this writ petition prematurely.

4. The prayer made by the petitioners invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court can only be accepted if it be shown that any law which is void or any statutory order which is invalid is being wrongfully applied to them or to persons whose oases they are entitled to sponsor. In this case in fact no question at all has yet arisen of applying the provisions of the notification dated 9 June 1961 which is being impugned by this petition. As we have just stated in the paragraph above, there is no material on the basis of which we can hold that any disputes at all have arisen between the employers and the workmen which disputes could be sponsored by the petitioners or by their constituent unions. Further, even if such industrial disputes had arisen, the mere existence of those disputes would not, in our opinion, justify our proceeding to exercise our writ Jurisdiction. That jurisdiction should only be exercised if any when we find that the provisions of the impugned notification are actually sought to be applied to those Industrial disputes. In the present case the petitioners could have sought remedy from the appropriate authorities in respect of those disputes which according to the petitioners arose when these representations were made by the various workmen to their employers. In seeking their remedy they could have ignored the provisions of this notification dated 9 June 1961 if their contention was that that notification was void altogether. We may mention that the validity of that notification Is challenged inter alia on the ground that the State Government had no power at all to constitute the committee for the purpose for which it was constituted by this notification. If the contention of the petitioners was that this committee was wholly void, the remedy for the workmen sought by the petitioners or their constituent unions would have been the remedy otherwise provided by the Industrial Disputes Act. If thereafter that remedy had been denied to them on the ground that their case was governed by this notification dated 9 June 1961, and they were directed to proceed In accordance with that notification, or were relegated to the procedure laid down by that notification, they could then competently come to this Court and seek the aid of this Court in questioning the notification. While they have not been relegated to the remedy under the notification and in fact, while they have not sought any remedy at all by asserting before the appropriate authorities that industrial disputes do exist which require decision in accordance with law, no occasion arises for this Court to go Into the validity of the notification dated 9 June 1961 and at this stage, therefore, this Court cannot grant the prayer sought by this petition. In view of this preliminary question we consider it unnecessary to go into the merits of the various points raised for impugning the notification dated 9 June 1961. No question of quashing that notification, therefore, arises. The further prayer for prohibiting opposite parties 2 to 4 from exercising jurisdiction in respect of the disputes also cannot arise in view of the result which we have arrived at above.

5. The petition, therefore fails and is dismissed. In view of the circumstance that we are dismissing this petition on a preliminary ground which was not raised by any of the opposite parties, we direct the parties to bear their own costs of the petition.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //