# M/s. U. P. ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO., LTD v. THE WORKMEN OF M/s. S. N. CHOUDHARY

- **Citation:** [1960] 3 S.C.R. 189
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1957-06-29
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 481of1958
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/m-s-u-p-electric-supply-co-ltd-v-the-workmen-of-m-s-s-n-choudhary-1830
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
189
remedies available to the petitioner for obtaining
i96o
relief.· It cannot complain of a breach of Art 14.
P b'·- ·r
Th
h
.
f th
. .
. th
if ar '~ni rampo•l
e ot er contention o
e peht10ner IS
at.
C<HJp.
Chapter IY permits the State to compete with a private
Society Ltd.
citizen, it offends Art. 14 because in view of the vast
v.
resources of th. e State a private citizen is bound to lose
R. T. A.
1
£
d
Aurangabad
in such competition. --This point is clear y un ounde •
Article 19(6) as it now stands, contemplates such a
Sarkar J.
competition as we have earlier pointed out. The petitioner can base no grievance on such competition.
,
For these reasons we think that this petition must
fail' and hence it is dismissed with· costs.
· ·
Petition dismi;~ed. ···
M/s. U. P. ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO., LTD.
v.
THE WORKMEN OF M/s. S. N. CHOUDHARY,
CONTRACTORS AND ANOTHER
(P. B. GAJENDBAGADKAR AND K. N. \VANCHOO, JJ).
·· · · Industri~lDispute-Tribunal deciding issue not rejerred to it~
Jurisdiction-U.P. Industrial Dispute Act, r947 (XXV III of r947),
&~~~0~&
..
The appellant company used to employ J\Iessrs. S. 11: Choudhary as its contractors for doing certain work for it and the
contractors in their turn used to employ some workmen to carry
out the work _w)lich they took on contract. A dispute having
arisen between the contractors and their workmen an application
was made before the conciliation board by the workmen in which
both the company and the contractors were parties and four
· matters were referred, namely, non-grant of bonus for two years,
non-grant of festival holidays, non-fixation of minimum wages ·
of those workmen at par with the workmen of the company and
non-abolition of the contract system. As conciliation failed the
Government referred the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal under
the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act in which only three points out
of the four mentioned above were referred and the question of
non-abolition of the contract system was· not referred. The
parties to this reference were the contractors and their workmen .
and not the appellant company. By a subsequent notification,
ho;vever, the Government impleaded the Company asa party to
. the dispute but did not amend the previous referring order by
Ma1eh8
M/,,U P.
Electric
Supply Co. Ltd.
v.
Workmen of
Mf'· S. N.
Choudhary
190
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1960]
adding the fourth point of dispute which was hefore the conciliation board, namely, the non-abolition of the contract system.
The Industrial Tribunal framed a number of issues the most
important of which was whether the workmen concerned were
the employees of the appellant company or of the contractors
and came to the conclusion that those workmen were in fact and
'in reality the employees of the company. On appeal by the
company by special leave,
.
Held, that on such a reference there could be no jurisdiction
in the tribunal to· decide the question whether these workmen
were the \vorkmen of the company or of the contractors, for
such a question was riot referred to the tribunal.

## Text

3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
189
remedies available to the petitioner for obtaining
i96o
relief.· It cannot complain of a breach of Art 14.
P b'·- ·r
Th
h
.
f th
. .
. th
if ar '~ni rampo•l
e ot er contention o
e peht10ner IS
at.
C<HJp.
Chapter IY permits the State to compete with a private
Society Ltd.
citizen, it offends Art. 14 because in view of the vast
v.
resources of th. e State a private citizen is bound to lose
R. T. A.
1
£
d
Aurangabad
in such competition. --This point is clear y un ounde •
Article 19(6) as it now stands, contemplates such a
Sarkar J.
competition as we have earlier pointed out. The petitioner can base no grievance on such competition.
,
For these reasons we think that this petition must
fail' and hence it is dismissed with· costs.
· ·
Petition dismi;~ed. ···
M/s. U. P. ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO., LTD.
v.
THE WORKMEN OF M/s. S. N. CHOUDHARY,
CONTRACTORS AND ANOTHER
(P. B. GAJENDBAGADKAR AND K. N. \VANCHOO, JJ).
·· · · Industri~lDispute-Tribunal deciding issue not rejerred to it~
Jurisdiction-U.P. Industrial Dispute Act, r947 (XXV III of r947),
&~~~0~&
..
The appellant company used to employ J\Iessrs. S. 11: Choudhary as its contractors for doing certain work for it and the
contractors in their turn used to employ some workmen to carry
out the work _w)lich they took on contract. A dispute having
arisen between the contractors and their workmen an application
was made before the conciliation board by the workmen in which
both the company and the contractors were parties and four
· matters were referred, namely, non-grant of bonus for two years,
non-grant of festival holidays, non-fixation of minimum wages ·
of those workmen at par with the workmen of the company and
non-abolition of the contract system. As conciliation failed the
Government referred the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal under
the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act in which only three points out
of the four mentioned above were referred and the question of
non-abolition of the contract system was· not referred. The
parties to this reference were the contractors and their workmen .
and not the appellant company. By a subsequent notification,
ho;vever, the Government impleaded the Company asa party to
. the dispute but did not amend the previous referring order by
Ma1eh8
M/,,U P.
Electric
Supply Co. Ltd.
v.
Workmen of
Mf'· S. N.
Choudhary
190
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1960]
adding the fourth point of dispute which was hefore the conciliation board, namely, the non-abolition of the contract system.
The Industrial Tribunal framed a number of issues the most
important of which was whether the workmen concerned were
the employees of the appellant company or of the contractors
and came to the conclusion that those workmen were in fact and
'in reality the employees of the company. On appeal by the
company by special leave,
.
Held, that on such a reference there could be no jurisdiction
in the tribunal to· decide the question whether these workmen
were the \vorkmen of the company or of the contractors, for
such a question was riot referred to the tribunal.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal
No. 481of1958.
Appeal by special leave from the Award dated
June 29, 1957, of the State Industrial, Tribunal U.P.
Allahabad, in Ref. No. 98 of 1956.
M. G. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India, S. N:
Andley, J.B. Dadachanji, Rameshwar Na.th and P. L.
V ohra, for the appellants.
•
A. D. Mathur, for respondent No. 1.
G. G. Mathur and G. P. Lal, for respondent No. 2.
G. N. Dikshit and G. P. Lal, for the intervener.
1960. March, 8. The Judgment of the Court was
delivered by
Wanchoo J.
WANOHOO, J.-This is an appeal by special leave
against the order of the Industrial Tribunal, Allahabad. The appellant is the U. P. Electric Supply Co.
Ltd., Lucknow, (hereinafter called the company). It
appears that the company used to employ Messrs.
S. M. Choudhary (hereinafter referred to as the contractors) as its contractors for doing certain work for
it. The contractors in their turn used to employ a
number of persons to carry out the work.which they
had taken on contract. A dispute.arose between the
qontractors and their workmen in 1956 and an application was made on June 6, 1956, by the workmen
before the conciliation board. To this application
both the company as well as the contractors were
parties and four matters were referred by the workmen to the concil,iation board, tlamely, (i) non-grant
of bonus for the years 1953-54 and 1954-55; (ii) nongrant of festival holidays; (iii) non-fixation of
minimum wages of these workmen at par with the
-
-
., .
3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
191
r960
workmen employed by the company; and (i~) nonabolition of the contract system. Efforts at conciliation failed and thereupon the Government of Uttar
M~ie~~t
Pradesh made a reference to the Industrial Tribunal · supply co. 1.td,
under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, No. XXVIII
v.
of 194:7, (hereinafter called the Act). In this reference
Workmen °1
only thr6le points were referred out of the fpur which
M/s. s. N.
b
Choudhary
were before the conciliation
oard, namely, those
relating to bonus, festival holidays and payment of
wages to these workmen at par with the workmen of
the company. The fourth point which was raised
before the conciliation board (namely, non-abolition
of the contract system) was not referred. The parties
to this reference were two, namely-(i) the contractors
and (ii) their workmen. The appellant was not a
party to this reference. On August 13, 1956, another
notification was issued by the U. P. Government
under ss. 3, 5 and 8 of the Act by which the company
was impleaded as a party to the dispute referred by
the notification of July 31, 1956. It is remarkable,
however, that the matters of dispute which were
specified in the reference dated July 31, 1956, were not
amended as they could have been under the proviso
to s. 4: of the Act, by adding the fourth point of
dispute before the conciliation board, namely, the
non-abolition of the contract system. When the
matter came up before the industrial court it framed
a number of issues; and the first and most important
issue ran thus : " Are the workmen concerned employees of the U. P. Electric Supply Co. Ltd., Lucknow
or of Messrs. S. M. Chaudhary, contractors? "
The main objection of the company was that the
dispute, if any, was between the contractors and their
employees and that there was no dispute between the
company and its workmen. It was further objected
that there was no valid or legal order of the Government referring any dispute between the company and
its workmen to the tribunal and therefore the tribunal
had no jurisdiction. On the merits it was urged that
the workmen concerned were not the workmen of the
company and there was no relationship of employer
and employee between the company and these workmen and therefore the company could not be regarded
Wanchoo. ].
I
M/s.U.P.
Electric
Supply Co. Ltd.
v.
1Vorkmen of
M,'s. S.N.
Choudhary
Wanchoo ].
192
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1960]
as a party to the dispute between the contractors and
their workmen.
It is therefore clear that the ma.in question which
was considered by the tribunal was whether the workmen concerned were the workmen of the company or
of the contractors.
As the tribunal itself says, "the
crux of the whole case was whether the workmen
concerned were the employees of the company".
The tribunal went into the evidence in this connection
and came to the conclusion that these workmen were
in fact and in reality the employees of the company.
The main contention on behalf of the company
before us is that even assuming that the Government
had power under s. 5 read with cl. 12 of G. 0.
No. U-464 (LL)XXXVI-B-257(LL)/1954, dated July
14, 1954, to implead the company as a party, the
main issue decided by the tribunal was not referred to
it and the tribunal could only decide the three matters
of dispute included in the order of reference of July
31, 1956. Therefore, in so far as the tribunal went
beyond the three matters of dispute 8pecified in the
reference and decided the question whether the workmen concerned were in the employ of the company or
of the contractors it was acting without jurisdiction
as this matter was never referred to it.
We are of opinion that this contention must prevail.
As we have already pointed out, there were four
matters before the conciliation board including the
que8tion of non-abolition of the contract system.
Further before the conciliation board not only the
contractors but the company was also a party, for
obviously the question of non-abolition of the contract system would necessitate the presence of the
company as a party to the proceedings. When
however the Government referred the dispute to the
tribunal on July 31, it did not include the fourth item
which was before the conciliation board relating to
the non-abolition of the contract system among the
matters in dispute. It also did not include the company as one of the parties to the dispute, for the
reference-order refers only to two parties to the dispute, namely, the contractors and their workmen.
,On such a reference there could be no jurisdiction in
-
c
#'
-
.,, .
•).
...
... '
,._
fl S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
193
the tribunal to decide the question whether these
workmen w,ere the workmen of the company or of the
uontractors, for such a question was not referred to
the tribunal. It is true that on August 13, 1956, the
company was impleaded as a party to the dispute
referred by the notification of July 31; but the
matters in dispute remained unamended, and the
question of non-abolition of the contract system or
the question whether these workmen were the employees of the company in fact and ,in reality was not
included in the matters of dispute by amendment
. under the proviso to s. 4 of the Act. In these circumstances it is immaterial to consider whether the
impleading of the company as a party on August 13,
1956, was legal and valid or not. Assuming that it
w~s legal and valid, the fact remains that issue No. 1
set out above by us which is undoubtedly the crux of
the question in this case was not referred to the
tribunal at all and did not arise out of the three
matters of dispute specified in ,the reference order of
July 31, 1956. In these circumstances the order of
the tribunal by which it held that these workmen
were the workmen of the company was beyond its
jurisdiction. The entire order of the tribunal is
directed against the company and must therefore be
set aside in whole as without jurisdiction and we need·
not express any opinion on the merits. We therefore
allow the appeal and set aside the order of the tribunal
against the appellant. In the circumstances we pass
no order as to costs .
Appeal allowed.
'
r960
M/s. U. P.
Electric
Supply Co. Ltd.
v.
Workmen of
Mjs. S. N.
Choudhary
Wanchoo ].