VISHWAMITRA PRESS KARYALAYA versus THE WORKERS OF VISHWAMILRA PRESS. on 2 December 1952

The State o/ Punjab v,

Ajriib Singh and Another. DasJ.·

l9ii2

' 'Dea~ a.

272 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1953]

seriously pressed the objection of unconstitutionality based on article 15, which, in our view, was rightly rejected by the High Court.

lrlthough we hold that the High Court erred on the construction they put upon article 2:2 and the appellant has succeeded on that point before us, this appeal will; nevertheless, have to be dismissed on the ground that the Tribunal was not properly constitu-ted and its order was without jurisdiction, as conced-ed by the learned So Ii ci tor-General. vVe, therefore, dismiss this appeal on that ground. We make no order as to costs.

Appeal dismissed.

Agent for the appellant: P. A. Mehta.

VISHWAMITRA PRESS KARYALAYA

v.

THE WORKERS OF VISHWAMI'l'RA PRESS.

THE STATJ£ OF U'l'TAR PRADESH-Intervener.

[MEHll CHAND MAHAJAN, DAS and BHAOWATI JJ.]

U. P. Industrial Disvutcs Act, 1947, ss. B, 4-U. P. General Clauses Act, 1904, s. JO-Industrial Tribunal, whether a "Court"-Period fixed for making award exviring on holiday-Award vro-nounced 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 refer-red 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 pro-nounced on the 2nd July was not invalid on the ground that it was i;ot pronounced within the period fixed.

CrvrL APPELLATE JuRrsnrcTroN: Civil Appeal 1952 No. 65 of 1952. Appeal from an award dated 17th v· is h wa~n'l .1 ra November, 1951, made by the Labour Appellate Press Karyalaya Tribunal of India, Calcutta, in Appeal No. Cal. :!80 v. of 1951. The Workers of of The Workers of of Vishwamitra Press.

hl'm) for the

K. P. Khaitan (Harnam Das, with

appellant.

K. B. Asthana for the respondents.

Gopalji Mehrotra for the [ntervener.

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 Tribu-nal, Calcutta, upholding the award made by the State Industria.l Tribunal, Uttar Pradesh, with certain modifications.

An industrial dispute aro3e between the appellant, the Vishwamitra Press Karyalaya, Kanpur, and the respondents, the workers of the Vishwamitra Press as represented by the Kanpur Samachar Patra Karani-chari 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, I951, 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 •rribu-nal. The Labour Appellate 'l'ribunal negatived the contentions of ~he appellant. The aprellant aj:>plieq 274 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1953]

for special leave which was granted by this Court on

Vishwam;t,a the 21st December, 1951, limited to the following Press Karyn.Zaya grounds :

~ ( 1) 1) The Government had no power to no power to extend the time of the making of award after the expiry of after the expiry of the expiry of expiry of the time • ongma · · \\ y fi xe d , an d d , an d , an d d t e awar h h d ma e d d by the Adjudicator after such time is illegal, ultra vires,

v. ~ ( 1) 1) The Government had no power to no power to extend the Th~ Work•~• [0]1 time of the making of award after the expiry of after the expiry of the expiry of expiry of the V<BhWnm•tra p,.ss. time • ongma · · \\ y fi xe d , an d d , an d , an d d t e awar h h d ma e d d by the Bhagwati J. inoperative and void.

(2) In any case the State Government had ex- tended the time for making the award till 30th June, J 951, 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 1iltra 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 Tri-bunal 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 :- " 'rhe 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 !unctio!ls c;>f 'rril;rnnals inttr alia provided :- S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPOR'fS

"(9). Tbe decision shall be in writing, and shall d signhed b[be ]y t e mem er or mem ers o [phronouncbed ][in openb courtf ]. t [ahnd ]e [Tda~bed ]. ri nna . [t"Ln],, 1, as t e p. 6 case may be, at the tune of pronouncmg 1t. •

Yishwamitra r ss 6 K arya 1 a,ya , v.

It was not disputed before us that the original The Worke:s of period calculated in accordance with paragraph 16 V•shwam•tra above expired on the 9th June, 1951, and the Uttar Press. Pradesh Government validly extended the period up Bhagwati J. to the 30th June, 1951. It was however contended that the Industrial 'I'ribunal 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 num-ber 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 ta'.ken 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 ou the next 195• day afterwards on which the Industrial Court was V is [[. h ]]wa1n1 .t ra open, i.e., the 2nd July, 1951. . Prima ;acie J1 therefore p,.,, Karyataya the award which was pronounced on the 2nd July, v. 1961, was well within time.

.t V is [[. h ]]wa1n1 ra p,.,, Karyataya v. The Worker• [0]! Vishwat1iitra Prm.

The ouly thing which Shri Khaitan counsel for the II t db f h f h h I a.ppe au urge e ore us t ere ore wast at t e ndns-trial Court was not a court within the meaning of sec-ti on 10 of the U. P. General Clauses Act. "The court" according to his submission could only be construed to mean a court in the hierarchy of the civil courts of the State and an Industrial Court did not fall within that category. We are unable to accept this contention of Shri Khaitan. The Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was an Uttar Pradesh Act. 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 the U. P. Government in exercise of the powers con-ferred upon it by section 3 (d) of the Act. Paragraph 9 (9) of the General Order provided for the decision being pronounced by the Industrial Tribunal in open court and we fail to understand how it could ever be urged that the Industrial 'fribunal 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 June, 1951, as also on the 1st July, 1951, and the deci-sion could be pronounced by the Industrial Court on the next day afterwards on which it was open, i.e., on the 2nd July, 1951. In our opinion therefore the decision which was pronounced on the 2nd July, 1951, was well within time and was valid and binding on the parties.

Bhag<eati J.

The above decision is determinative of this appeal, and the appeal will therefore stand dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed.

Agent for the appellant: B. P. Maheshwari.

Agent for the respondents s,nd the iqtervener; G. P. Lal.