Skip to content


Workmen of Bengal Electric Lamp Works Ltd. Vs. the Bengal Electric Lamp Works Ltd. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLabour and Industrial
CourtKolkata High Court
Decided On
Case NumberC. Order No. 589 of 1958
Judge
Reported inAIR1958Cal663,62CWN219
ActsIndustrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 10(4); ;Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908
AppellantWorkmen of Bengal Electric Lamp Works Ltd.
RespondentThe Bengal Electric Lamp Works Ltd.
Advocates:Arun Kumar Dutt and ;Bejoy Bhose, Advs.
DispositionApplication dismissed
Excerpt:
- .....of dispute for adjudication, ..... the tribunal shall confine its adjudication to those points and matters incidental thereto.' it is, therefore, clear from the words used in the body of the act that the tribunal has jurisdiction to adjudicate only on the points of dispute specified by the government. the tribunal has no ether jurisdiction. the language is clear by the use of the expression 'confine its adjudication to those points.'5. the expression 'and matters incidental thereto' appearing in section 10(4) of the act includes incidental matters. retrospective matters are not incidental matters. these expressions in the section are to be read prospectively unless the actual terms of reference indicate either expressly or by the most compelling and necessary implication any other.....
Judgment:

P.B. Mukharji, J.

1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution by the workman against the award of the First Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal. One of the issues referred to tee Tribunal was :

'What should be the service conditions of the 59 female workers as per list attached to the order of reference?'

2. The Tribunal in its award states : 'The Union's claim is that the workers should be paid full wages of Rs. 66/- per month retrospectively since the day they gave full production. This claim is not covered by the issue as referred to this Tribunal.'

3. The only point urged before me on this application for the issue of a Rule is that the Tribunal wrongfully and illegally failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested by those terms of reference. I am entirely unable to agree with that contention. The issue claimed plainly 'What should be the service conditions?' The issue is not 'What should have been'. The Industrial Tribunal is exercising its jurisdiction in my opinion is only bound by the terms of reference. The jurisdiction is confined to the actual points of disputes referred to. The words by which reference is made of the disputes are therefore important. To give vague and indeterminate jurisdiction to the Tribunal to make and pass retrospective orders would be in my opinion a dangerous course is take.

4. Section 10(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, enjoins that the Tribunal shall confineits adjudication to those points of dispute which have been specified by the appropriate Government. The material portion of tho language in Section 10(4) is :

'Where in an order referring an industrial dispute to ..... tribunal under this section or in a subsequent order, the appropriate Governmant has specified the points of dispute for adjudication, ..... the tribunal shall confine its adjudication to those points and matters incidental thereto.' It is, therefore, clear from the words used in the body of the Act that the tribunal has jurisdiction to adjudicate only on the points of dispute specified by the Government. The Tribunal has no ether jurisdiction. The language is clear by the use of the expression 'confine its adjudication to those points.'

5. The expression 'and matters incidental thereto' appearing in Section 10(4) of the Act includes incidental matters. Retrospective matters are not incidental matters. These expressions in the Section are to be read prospectively unless the actual terms of reference indicate either expressly or by the most compelling and necessary implication any other conclusion giving jurisdiction to the tribunal to pass orders retrospectively. Normally the ordinary principle of construction should be followed and that is that the prospective interpretation is to be preferred to a retrospective interpretation unless the retrospect is expressly or by necessary implication indicated,

6. For these reasons I am satisfied that the Tribunal rightly declined its jurisdiction in this case to go into the question whether wages should be given retrospectively.

7. No other point has been urged before me for the issue of a Rule.

8. I, therefore, summarily dismiss this application.


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