Coromandal Fertilisers Ltd. vs State of Andhra Pradesh and Others

The petitioner is the management. Respondent No. 3 laid an application before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour-Court, Visakhapatnam, the 2nd respondent, u/s 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (Act No. 14 of 1947), for short "the Act", to compute the incidental benefits accrued to him. It may be relevant to mention at this juncture that when the services of the 3rd respondent, Mr. E. Berchy, were terminated he laid an industrial dispute. The Tribunal set aside the order. Assailing the legality thereof the petitioner filed W.P. No. 3602/85 and the Court by its judgment dated March 21, 1986 dismissed the Writ Petition upholding the award of the Labour Court. The Writ Petition has become final. As a result, the 3rd respondent became entitled to the incidental and consequential benefits. For working out the same the 3rd respondent laid an application u/s 33C(2) of the Act. Assailing the jurisdiction thereof the petitioner filed the Writ Petition for a writ of prohibition. This Court by order dated September 7, 1987 in W.P.M.P. No. 11437/87 directed the Tribunal to proceed with M.P. 173/86 in computing the benefits, but it shall be subject to the result in the W.P. and directed the Writ Petition for final hearing. Thus the writ petition has come up. The Government in G.O.Ms. No. 20 of the 1st respondent, dated January 1, 1986 constituted the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, to deal with (1) all industrial disputes under clauses (c) and (d) of sub-section (2) of Section 33C of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; (2) all second appeals under sub-section (3) of Section 41 of the Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act, 1966. Assailing the jurisdiction of the Tribunal as stated earlier, this writ petition has been filed.

Sri Rajagopala Reddy learned counsel for the petitioner (contends that) Government is devoid of jurisdiction to constitute an Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court. There is no power conferred under the Act for constituting such a Tribunal and therefore the 2nd respondent is devoid of jurisdiction to compute the benefits accrued to the petitioner consequent of setting aside the termination of his appointment. The question therefore is, whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to compute the incidental benefit u/s 33C(2) of the Act. u/s 7(1) of the Act, the appropriate Government may, by notification in the official gazette, constitute one or more Labour Courts for the adjudication of industrial disputes relating to any matter specified in the Second Schedule and for performing such other functions as may be assigned to them under this Act. Scheduled II provides the matters within the jurisdiction of the Labour Court, items 1 to 6 thereof. Item 3 relates to discharge or dismissal of workmen including reinstatement or grant of relief to, workmen wrongfully dismissal. Item 6 provides for all matters other than those specified in the Third Schedule. Section 7A(1) empowers the appropriate Government by a notification in the official gazette to constitute one or more Industrial Tribunals for adjudication of industrial disputes relating to any matter, whether specified in the Second Schedule or the Third Schedule or for performing such other functions as may be assigned to them under this Act. Schedule III provides the matters within the jurisdiction of Industrial Tribunals. The appropriate Government means the State Government.

Therefore, a reading of these provisions clearly postulates that the appropriate Government is empowered by a notification published in the official gazette to constitute one or more Industrial Tribunals for adjudication of industrial disputes and to perform such other functions as may be assigned to them under the Act. Therefore, it is clear, the Government is empowered to constitute one or more Labour Courts to adjudicate industrial disputes and to perform such other functions as may be assigned to them under this Act. The question therefore is, what is the meaning of "assignment" within the meaning of Secs. 7(1) and 7-A(1) of the Act. The word "assignment" means conferment of power under the Act on one or more Industrial Tribunals or the Labour Courts as the case may be. Section 33C of the Act provides the power to the Labour Court as may be specified in this behalf by the Government empowering the workman who is entitled to receive from the employer any money or any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money, to lay an application in that behalf within a period of six months not exceeding three months for computation thereof. Thus Labour Court so constituted is empowered to order computation or payment of money or the benefit in terms of money and direct payment thereof by the Management. As extracted earlier the appropriate Government in the aforesaid G.O. has constituted the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, but in the same G.O. instead of mentioning two Tribunals, it is coined as Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court. No doubt, expressly there is no word mentioned in the statute Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, but the nomenclature is not conclusive or decisive. It is one mode of expression. As already seen, Section 7A provides the power to the appropriate Government to appoint an Industrial Tribunal, Section 7(1) provides power to constitute Labour Court. Therefore, while exercising the power in a compendious may for brevity it has been coined as Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court. In fact in a decision of this Court in Hyderabad Engineering Industries v. State of A.P. by Secretary in W.P. No. 5155/78 dated July 28, 1987, my learned brother P. A. Choudary, J. has held that Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court is validly constituted in exercise of the aforesaid powers. I respectfully agree with the conclusion reached by my learned brother.

Accordingly I hold that the State Government is empowered and has validly constituted the 2nd respondent Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, which has jurisdiction u/s 33C(2) of the Act to compute the benefits accrued to the petitioner as a consequence of the decision rendered by the Industrial Tribunal as upheld by this Court, setting aside the order of termination of his employment and reinstating him into the service, as a consequence thereof.

The Writ petition is accordingly dismissed, but in the circumstances, no order as to costs. Advocate''s fee Rs. 350/-.