The Management of Messrs. Wilfred Pereira (Private) Limited vs The Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Another

Srinivasan, J.—The management is the Petitioner. The short ground raised in this petition is that the order of reference u/s 10(1) of the Act is improper and that the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition. It is also claimed that the order of the Labour Court overruling the objections raised by the management in this regard gives no reasons whatsoever and that it merely states that the reasons will be given in the award. It is claimed that this order is liable to be struck down for that reason as well.

The order of reference in this case arose out of a dispute between the management of Messrs. Wilfred Pereira and its workmen. The workmen were represented by the Madras Commercial and General Workers Union. The reference was made by the Government, and the notification in this regard reads:

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 10(1)(c) read with the proviso to Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act XIV of 1947), the Governor of Madras hereby directs that the said dispute be referred for adjudication to the Labour Court, Madras.

The contention on behalf of the management before the Labour Court and here has been that, u/s 10 of the Act read with the proviso thereto, it is not competent for the Government to refer the dispute to any other body than the Tribunal, as the dispute involves more than one hundred worker men. This contention was denied by the workmen, the allegation being that the dispute arose only with regard to workmen who were employed in the City of Madras that the particular Union was not competent to represent any workman other than those employed in the City, and that, therefore, the order of reference to a Labour Court by virtue of the proviso to Section 10 of the Act was properly made. The question, therefore, is whether the dispute concerns workmen numbering more than one hundred.

According to the list of employees furnished on behalf of the management, there are 83 employees in the City of Madras. It is not quite clear whether this number of 83 includes persons working in a managerial capacity, in which event the number of workmen as defined in the Industrial Disputes Act will be even less. It appears, however, that there are branches of the management at Ootacamund, Coimbatore, Kotagiri, Coonoor and Kodaikanal within the State of Madras. There are also branches at Bangalore, Secunderabad and Always outside the State of Madras. The total number of members in the City of Madras, in the mufassal and outside the State employed by Messrs. Wilfred Pereira is said to come to 116. The contention of the management is that notwithstanding that the dispute might have been raised by the local workmen, the effect of any award which might be passed by the Tribunal or the Labour Court is likely to affect the entirety of the employees of the management, so that, for the purposes of making a reference, the totality of the members so employed ought to be taken into consideration, in which event, it is said, the reference should be only to a Tribunal. I am not satisfied that this interpretation of the provision is correct. The fact that an award that is passed might affect the larger body of employees than those directly concerned in the dispute arises by reason of other provisions of the Act. That has no relevance to the jurisdiction of the Government to refer the dispute to a Labour Court or to a Tribunal. For the management, however, it is pointed out that in the report made by the Conciliation Officer nothing is mentioned about the dispute being restricted only to workmen employed m the City. It seems to me that the Conciliation Officer''s report certainly does not purport to take in any claims that might be made by workmen outside the City of Madras or those outside the State. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Union, it is pointed out that the Union has on its membership rolls only those workmen of the management who are employed in the City and the Union itself disclaims any right to represent any other persons than those in the City. It may also be noticed that the dispute relates to wages and dearness allowance, which will certainly differ from locality to locality. Having regard to all of these facts, there is no doubt that the dispute was raised only by the employees working in the City of Madras, and, even including those in the mufassal but leaving those outside the State, it is not unlikely that the number will fall short of 100.

In this regard, learned Counsel appearing for the management has referred to a decision of the Supreme Court, in Kirlosker Brothers v. Its workmen (1962) 2 L.L.J. 732. That was a case where the workmen employed in the factory and the press of the management were members of a Trade Union and certain disputes were raised by the Union. Pending conciliation proceedings, the factory was shifted from Kirloskarvadi to Poona. The order of reference, however, stated that the disputes were between Kirloskar Brothers, Limited, Kirloskarvadi, and the workmen employed under it. The question arose whether, by reason of the fact that all these workmen had been shifted to Poona the order of reference would continue to cover the workmen so shifted. Their Lordships had no difficulty in holding that it would. I can see no application of this decision to the facts of this case.

It seems to me that the Government in making the reference, are entitled to reach the conclusion that, since the dispute is net likely to affect more than 100 workmen, the reference could be made to the Labour Court by virtue of the proviso to Section 10 of the Act. The jurisdiction so derived by the Labour Court cannot be challenged.

It is true that the order of the Labour Court, in dealing with this matter, gives no reasons. It is open to the Labour Court to give expression to its reasons at the time of making the award. The order of the Labour Court is not liable to be quashed for that reason. The petition fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.