Skip to content


N.M. Desai Vs. the Testeels Ltd. and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLabour and Industrial
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Appeal No. 245 of 1970
Judge
Reported inAIR1980SC2124; (1979)GLR834(SC); (1979)3SCC225
ActsIndustrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 33(2)
AppellantN.M. Desai
RespondentThe Testeels Ltd. and anr.
Excerpt:
.....dispute - conciliation officer refused approval by passing non-speaking order - order passed by quasi-judicial authority should contain order on face of order - held, order passed was void. - [a.k. sarkar,; k.n. wanchoo and; raghubar dayal, jj.] in 1949, the banking companies act was passed with a view to protect and secure the interests of depositors. in 1953 s. 45-o was enacted by the banking companies (amendment) act, in pursuance of the recommendations of the banking companies liquidation proceedings committee. section 45-o (1) provided that in computing the period of limitation prescribed for an application by a banking company which is being wound up, the period commencing from the date of the presentation of the winding up petition shall be excluded; and s. 45-o (3)..........no reasons what ever. the aggrieved management challenged the said order on the score that a quasi-judicial power could not be exercised without complying with the obligation to pass a speaking order. a full bench of the high court of gujarat to which it was referred considered the question at great length. the conclusion arrived at was that the order was void because every order passed by a quasi-judicial authority should contain reasons on the face of the order. in this view, the high court set aside the order and remitted the matter back to the conciliation officer. all this took place way back in 1969.3. we are not persuaded that the proposition of law that appealed to the high court is wrong. it follows that the order of the conciliation officer impugned is bad and the appeal.....
Judgment:

V.R. Krishna Iyer, J.

1. The appellant, the Conciliation Officer Ahmedabad, preferred this appeal by certificate.

2. The brief facts are that a certain employee of the first respondent was sought to be dismissed by it at a time when there was an industrial dispute pending conciliation. So, the Management sought the approval of the Conciliation Officer as required by the proviso to Section 33(2) of the Indus trial Disputes Act, 1947. The appellant officer passed an order refusing approval but assigning no reasons what ever. The aggrieved Management challenged the said order on the score that a quasi-judicial power could not be exercised without complying with the obligation to pass a speaking order. A Full Bench of the High Court of Gujarat to which it was referred considered the question at great length. The conclusion arrived at was that the order was void because every order passed by a quasi-judicial authority should contain reasons on the face of the order. In this view, the High Court set aside the order and remitted the matter back to the Conciliation Officer. All this took place way back in 1969.

3. We are not persuaded that the proposition of law that appealed to the High Court is wrong. It follows that the order of the Conciliation Officer impugned is bad and the appeal must fail.

4. It transpires that the respondent Management has since reached a settlement of the dispute with the employee concerned and so the question itself has become purely academic. The respondent has not entered appearance either.

5. In these circumstances, the appeal is dismissed without costs.


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