# RAI SAHIB RAMDAYAL GHASIRAM OIL MILLS v. THE LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND ANOTHER

- **Citation:** [1963] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 845
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1963
- **Bench:** S. J. Imam, J. L. Kapur, K. SUBBA RAo, J. R. MuDHOLKAR
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/rai-sahib-ramdayal-ghasiram-oil-mills-v-the-labour-appellate-tribunal-and-2854
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Industrial Dispute-Closure of the Mill on the ground of
loss-Workmen awarded retrenchment benefit-Mill reopened
-Only some of the former
workers
re-employed-Wag"
reduced-Reference made to single member Tribunal-Another
sinyle member Tribunal after /&is retirement-No fresh reference
made-Whether neio Tri'bunal hao jurisdiction to adjndicateConstitution of India, Art. 226-Industrial Disputes
.let
1947 (14 of 1947), ss. 7 (1), 8 (2), 10 (1) (c)-lndustrial Dis1iutes Act, 1947, as amended by Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act 1953, s. 25 (H).
The appelhnt concern was closed on the ground that it
incurred heavy losses.
Thereupon the workmen
raised
an
industria1 dispute and they were awarded rctrcnclunent benefits.
About.two years later the appellant concern was reopened. But only some of the former wor werekers re-employed along with some new recruits. The wages were lower than
before. The workers put forward certain damar.ds including for
the demand for absorption of those of the workmen who were
not re-employed when the mill was reopened and for payment
to them of compensation for une1nployment from the date of reopening. An industrial dispute having arisen the Government
constituted a single Member Tribunal and made a reference of
the disputes to that Tribunal. Thereafter the Member retired.
The Governmeut then purporting to act under s. 7 (I) of the
Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and in supercessio.n of the pre~
vious notification constituted a single ~1ember 'fribunal. This
'fribunal to which no fresh reference was n1ade proceeded with
the adjmlication of the dispute. Apart· from the demands
already made the workers conlendcd before the Tribunal that
they were entitled to the benefits under s; 25 (H) of the Industrial Dispules Act, as amended by the Industrial Dhputcs
(Amendment) Act, 1953.
Thr, appellant contended that the
Tribunal had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute
J96f
1962
Rlli SaW Ramdayal
G. asiram Oil Mills
v.
The Labour AJ,pellate
Tribunal
846 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] StJPP.
and that s. 25 (H) wa• not available to the fvrmer workmen
who had been retrenched.
The first contention of the appellant was rejected.
Even though the second contention was
accepted the r[ rih11naJ made an order in favour of the \.\'Orkmcn
on the ground that though they cannot clain1 the statutory
benefits of s. 25 (H) the principle of sucialjusticc 11n<lcrlyi11g
that section entitled them to receive s.-ila.ries au<l allowances
from the date of reopening the mill. The appellaut preferred
an appeal to the Industrial Appellate Tribunal. On the dismissal of that appeal the appellant filed a writ petition before
the High Conrt of Bombay. The High Court sununarily dismissed that petition but a c·crtificatc was granted to appeal
tu this Court.
The appellant reitrated before this Court the two contcutiuus stated abvve.
Held, that snb-s. (I) of s. 7 of the Industrial Disputes
Act empowers the Government to constitute a Tribunal. But
n1ercly constituting a Tribunal tOr adjudicaiion of disputes is
not enough. It has also to act under s. 10 and make a specific
reference to it of each dispute for adjudication. Without such
a reference the 'fribunal docs not get any jurisdiction to adjudicate upou any dispute.
The provisions of s. 25 (H) caunut apply to workmen
\vho had been retrenched before thls section came into force.
'fhe provision not Ueing retrospective no tribunal h<is jurisdiction on the basis of its own conception of social justice to
apply it or its underlying "principle" to a dispute which
arose before the provision cainc into force.
CIVIL APPELLATEjURSIDICTION: Civil Appeal
No. 593/1960.
Appeal from the order dated October HI,
1956, of 'the Bombay High Court in special Civil
Application No. 2832 of 1956.
Bi11lian N um-in and K. L.
JJf eh tu, for the
appellant.
The respondent did not appear.
1962. December JO.
The Judgment of the
Court· was delivered by
•
-,
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
847
MUDHOLKAit, J.-This is an appeal by a

## Text

2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
RAI SAHIB RAMDAYAL GHASIRAM
OIL MILLS
v.
THE LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
AND ANOTHER
845
(S. J. IMAM, J. L. KAPUR, K. SUBBA RAo and
J. R. MuDHOLKAR, JJ.)
Industrial Dispute-Closure of the Mill on the ground of
loss-Workmen awarded retrenchment benefit-Mill reopened
-Only some of the former
workers
re-employed-Wag"
reduced-Reference made to single member Tribunal-Another
sinyle member Tribunal after /&is retirement-No fresh reference
made-Whether neio Tri'bunal hao jurisdiction to adjndicateConstitution of India, Art. 226-Industrial Disputes
.let
1947 (14 of 1947), ss. 7 (1), 8 (2), 10 (1) (c)-lndustrial Dis1iutes Act, 1947, as amended by Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act 1953, s. 25 (H).
The appelhnt concern was closed on the ground that it
incurred heavy losses.
Thereupon the workmen
raised
an
industria1 dispute and they were awarded rctrcnclunent benefits.
About.two years later the appellant concern was reopened. But only some of the former wor werekers re-employed along with some new recruits. The wages were lower than
before. The workers put forward certain damar.ds including for
the demand for absorption of those of the workmen who were
not re-employed when the mill was reopened and for payment
to them of compensation for une1nployment from the date of reopening. An industrial dispute having arisen the Government
constituted a single Member Tribunal and made a reference of
the disputes to that Tribunal. Thereafter the Member retired.
The Governmeut then purporting to act under s. 7 (I) of the
Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and in supercessio.n of the pre~
vious notification constituted a single ~1ember 'fribunal. This
'fribunal to which no fresh reference was n1ade proceeded with
the adjmlication of the dispute. Apart· from the demands
already made the workers conlendcd before the Tribunal that
they were entitled to the benefits under s; 25 (H) of the Industrial Dispules Act, as amended by the Industrial Dhputcs
(Amendment) Act, 1953.
Thr, appellant contended that the
Tribunal had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute
J96f
1962
Rlli SaW Ramdayal
G. asiram Oil Mills
v.
The Labour AJ,pellate
Tribunal
846 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] StJPP.
and that s. 25 (H) wa• not available to the fvrmer workmen
who had been retrenched.
The first contention of the appellant was rejected.
Even though the second contention was
accepted the r[ rih11naJ made an order in favour of the \.\'Orkmcn
on the ground that though they cannot clain1 the statutory
benefits of s. 25 (H) the principle of sucialjusticc 11n<lcrlyi11g
that section entitled them to receive s.-ila.ries au<l allowances
from the date of reopening the mill. The appellaut preferred
an appeal to the Industrial Appellate Tribunal. On the dismissal of that appeal the appellant filed a writ petition before
the High Conrt of Bombay. The High Court sununarily dismissed that petition but a c·crtificatc was granted to appeal
tu this Court.
The appellant reitrated before this Court the two contcutiuus stated abvve.
Held, that snb-s. (I) of s. 7 of the Industrial Disputes
Act empowers the Government to constitute a Tribunal. But
n1ercly constituting a Tribunal tOr adjudicaiion of disputes is
not enough. It has also to act under s. 10 and make a specific
reference to it of each dispute for adjudication. Without such
a reference the 'fribunal docs not get any jurisdiction to adjudicate upou any dispute.
The provisions of s. 25 (H) caunut apply to workmen
\vho had been retrenched before thls section came into force.
'fhe provision not Ueing retrospective no tribunal h<is jurisdiction on the basis of its own conception of social justice to
apply it or its underlying "principle" to a dispute which
arose before the provision cainc into force.
CIVIL APPELLATEjURSIDICTION: Civil Appeal
No. 593/1960.
Appeal from the order dated October HI,
1956, of 'the Bombay High Court in special Civil
Application No. 2832 of 1956.
Bi11lian N um-in and K. L.
JJf eh tu, for the
appellant.
The respondent did not appear.
1962. December JO.
The Judgment of the
Court· was delivered by
•
-,
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
847
MUDHOLKAit, J.-This is an appeal by a
certificate from the summary dismissal by the
Bombay High Court of a writ petition under Arts.
226 and 227 of the Constitution. The relevant facts
arc these:
Rai Sahib Ramdayal Ghasiram Oil .l\1ills (hereinafter referred to
as the Mills) were closed on
September 1, 1!)52 on the ground that they h.td sustained heavy losses.
The closure was found to be
/Jonri fide and the workmen were awarded retrenchment benefit. The mills,
however,
reopened
on
November H, l !154, though their operations were
carried on a reduced scale for avoiding further
losses.
Some of the retrenched workmen were reemployed by the Mills but evidently at lower wages
than before. It was said on behalf of the Mills that
all the former workmen could not be absorbed but
it would appear that they had in fact employed some
new hands as well.
An industrial dispute having
been raised by the respondent ·union because of the
non-absorption of 11 workmen, the State Government constituted an lndusttial Tribunal consist·
ing of Mr. Kurian, under s. 7 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, as it stood on that date, on May 13,
1955 and referred the following dispute to him :
''Whether the retrenched workmen referred t~n
the Annexures A, Band C of the Award of the Industrial Triuunal, in the Industrial dispute between the
workmen and employers of Rai Sahib Ramdayal
Ghasiram Rice, Ginning and Oil Mills, Peddapally
dated 1, .January, l!J53 are entitled for reinstatement
and compensation for unemployment after reopening
of the said Mills."
lt may be mentioned that •hortly after the
Tribunal was constituted and reference made to it,
.l\1r. Kurian retired in consequence of which the
1962
Roi Sahio Rmniayal
Gtr.siram Oil Mills
v.
The Labour AppellOle
Tribunal
Mudholkar, J,
1962
Rai Sailib Ramdayal
Ghasiram Oil Mills
v.
Thi Lafour Appellate
Triiunal
Mudholkar, J,
848 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963]SUPP.
Government of Hyderabad made the following
notification on June 2, 1955 :
"In exercise of the powers conferred by sub·
section ( l) of section 7 of the Industrial Disputes
Act l!J-17 (XIV of l!J47) and in supersession of the
Labour Department Notification No. B. 189/54/134
dated 15-10·1954 the Rajapramukh hereby consti·
tutes an Industrial Tribunal consisting of Shri
Bhikaji Patil as its sole member for the adjudication
of industrial disputes in accordance with the provisions of the said Act, with immediate effect."
The respondents' case before the Tribunal was
that after the reopening of the Mills all the former
employees were entitled to be given preference over
others and were also entiled to re·employment on the
same wages as obtained at the date of closure. This
claim was based upon the award made by the In·
dustrial Tribunal on January l, 1953 in the dispute
which arose between the Mills and the respondents
in consequence of the closure of the Mills in
September, 1952. Para 24, cl. 6 of the Award on
the basis of which this claim was made by the
Union runs thus :
"In the event of the factory being reopened
within om' year from the date of award becomes en·
forceablc the employers will give first preference to
those workmen in Annexures A, B and C, that is, no
workmen will be employed in the factory other than
those employed at present without giving them first
opportunity for employment and that on terms as
to basic wage and allowances that were in force on
July 2!J, l!J52."
The grievance of the respondents was that only
a few of the former workers were re·employed and
that too at lower wages and some new hands
had been recruited disregarding the claim of some
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
849
former employees. They also claimed the benefit of
the provisions of s. 25 (H) of the Industrial Disputes
Act which were added to the Act by the Industrial
Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1953.
Several contentions were raised by the appellant before the Tribunal but we need only refer to
those which are now urged before us.
One con·
tention was that the Tribunal as it stood constituted
on June 2, 1955 had no jurisdiction to . adjudicate
upon the dispute and the other was that the provisions
of s. 25 (H) of the Industrial Disputes Act as amend·
ed by Act 43 of 1953 were not available to the former
workmen who had been retrenched. The first contention and other contetnions to which we have not
made any mention were rejected by the Tribunal
but the contention that the provisions of s. 25 (ll)
were not available to the retrenched workmen was
upheld by it. The Tribunal, however, made
an
order in favour of those workmen in the following
terms:
"Though the workers cannot clai~ statutory
benefits they cannot be denied social justice which is
the underlying principle of section 25 ( H) and the
rights that they had obtained under the previous
award of 1952. I, therefore, order that the workers
from Annexures A, B and C who are not taken back
in service by the employers be re-employed and they
should be paid their salaries and allowances from the
date of the reopening of the mills, i.e., 14·11-1954.
Their salaries would be the same as they were in force
at the time of the closure of the mills."
An appeal was preferred by the appellants from
the decision of the Tribunal before the Labour
Appellate Tribunal, Bombay. That appeal having
been dismissed, the appellants preferred a writ
petition before the High Court of Bombay which, as
already stated, rejected it in limine.
1962
ll.ai ~tzhib Ramda'lal
Gha.riram Oil Mills
v •
. The Lubour Appellat1
Tribunal
Mutlholkar, I.
1962
Roi Sahib Jlaminofol
Ghasrrom vii Mills
Y,
The Labour APP<llak
Tribunal
Mudholkar, J.
850 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1963] SUPP.
It seems to us that the contention of the appe·
llant that the Industrial Tribunal consisting of
Mr. Patil had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the
dispute is correct and must be upheld. Sub-s. (1) of
s. 7 as it then stood empowered the appropriate
Government to constitute one or more Industrial
Tribunalsfor the adjudication of industrial disputes in
accordance with the provisions of the Act. Such a
Tribunal was to consist of such number of members
as the appropriate Government thought fit.
Subs. (2) of s. 8 of the Act, as it then stood, provided
that
where a . Tribunal consists of one person
only and his services ceased to be available the
appropriate Government
may appoint
another
indepedent person in his place, and the proceedings
shall be continued before the person so appointed.
That being the legal position, the appropriate thing
for the Government to do was to take action under
sub-s. (2) of s. 8 after Mr. Kurian's services ceased
to be available.
Instead of doing that the Govern·
ment took action under s. 7 sub-s. (I) of the Act "in
supersession" of its previous uotification and constitu·
ted a fresh Industrial Tribunal consisting of Mr. Patil
as its sole member.
We need not consider here
whether the old Tribunal still continued to exist and
there was mere! y a vacancy therein and therefore
there was no occassion to constitute a fresh Tribunal
under sub-s. (I) of s. 7 because, having constituted a
fresh Tribunal, the Government failed to refer the
dispute in question to it under sub-s. (I) (c) of s. 10
of the Act.
Apparently, the law 'advisors and the
Government thought that a mere notification under
sub-s. (1) of s. 7 would meet the requirements of law
and there was no necessity to make a fresh notifi·
cation under s. 10 (1) (c) referring the particular dis·
pute for adjudication to the Tribunal.
No doubt,
sub-s. (1) of s. 7 empowers the Government to consti·
tute a Tribunal for adjudicating industrial disputes
in accordance with the provisions of the Act. But
merely constituting a Tribunal for such a purpose is
2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
851
not enough. It has also to act under s. 10 and make
a specific reference to it of each dispute for adjudication. Without such a reference the Tribunal does
not get any jurisdiction to adjudicate upon any
dispute. On this short ground, the appeal must be
allowed.
We will, however, say a word about the ground
upon which the Tribunal thought it fit to give the
retrenched workers the benefit of the provisions of
s. 25 (H) on the ground of social justice. Wide
though the powers of an Industrial Tribunal are
while adjudicating upon industrial disputes, it cannot
arrogate to itself powers which the legislature alone
can confer or do something which the legislature
has not permitted to
be done. Section 25 (H)
provides for re-employment of retrenched workmen in
certain circumstances in preference to newcomen.
But Act 43 of 1953 which enacted .this provision
clearly provides in sub-s. (2) of s. 1 thereof that "it
shall be deemed
to have come into force on
October 24, 1953." Clearly therefore, the provisions
of this section cannot apply to workmen who had
been retrenched before this provision came into force.
The legislature did not intend the provisions to come
into force before October 24, 1953. When that
is the mandate of the legislature
no Tribuual
has jurisdiction on the basis of its own conception of
social justice to ignore it and apply the provisions or
its underlying "principle" to a dispute which arose
before the provisions came into force.
For both these reasons, we allow the appeal and
quash the award of the Industrial Tribunal. There
will be no order as to costs as the respondents have
not put in an appearance.
Appeal allowerl.
1962
Rai Sahib Ramdayal
Ghasir.,;m Oil Mills
v.
The Labour Appellate
Tribunal
Mudlwlkar, J,