# VISHWAMITRA PRESS KARYALAYA v. THE WORKERS OF VISHWAMI'l'RA PRESS

- **Citation:** [1953] 1 S.C.R. 272
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1951-06-09
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal 1952 No. 65 of 1952
- **Bench:** MEHll CHAND MAHAJAN, Das, Bhaowati
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/vishwamitra-press-karyalaya-v-the-workers-of-vishwami-l-ra-press-10
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

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 vronounced 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 referred 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 pronounced on the 2nd July was not invalid on the ground that it was
i;ot pronounced within the period fixed.
-. .
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
273
CrvrL APPELLATE JuRrsnrcTroN: Civil Appeal
1952
No. 65 of 1952. Appeal from an award dated 17th v· h
.1
is wa~n'l 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
K. P. Khaitan (Harnam Das, with
appellant.
K. B. Asthana for the respondents.
Gopalji Mehrotra for the [ntervener.
hl'm) for the
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 Tribunal, 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 Karanichari 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 •rribunal. The Labour Appellate 'l'ribunal negatived the
contentions of ~he appellant. The aprellant aj:>plieq
Vishwamitra
Press.
274
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1953]
1952
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 :
v.
~ ( 1) The Government had no power to extend the
Th~ Work•~• 01 time of the making of award after the expiry of the
V<BhWnm•tra
•
· ·
\\
fi
d
d
h
d
d
p,.ss.
time ongma y
xe , an
t e awar
ma e by the
Adjudicator after such time is illegal, ultra vires,
Bhagwati J. inoperative and void.
(2) In any case the State Government had extended 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 Tribunal 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 ali

## Text

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 constituted and its order was without jurisdiction, as conceded 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 vronounced 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 referred 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 pronounced on the 2nd July was not invalid on the ground that it was
i;ot pronounced within the period fixed.
-. .
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
273
CrvrL APPELLATE JuRrsnrcTroN: Civil Appeal
1952
No. 65 of 1952. Appeal from an award dated 17th v· h
.1
is wa~n'l 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
K. P. Khaitan (Harnam Das, with
appellant.
K. B. Asthana for the respondents.
Gopalji Mehrotra for the [ntervener.
hl'm) for the
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 Tribunal, 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 Karanichari 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 •rribunal. The Labour Appellate 'l'ribunal negatived the
contentions of ~he appellant. The aprellant aj:>plieq
Vishwamitra
Press.
274
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1953]
1952
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 :
v.
~ ( 1) The Government had no power to extend the
Th~ Work•~• 01 time of the making of award after the expiry of the
V<BhWnm•tra
•
· ·
\\
fi
d
d
h
d
d
p,.ss.
time ongma y
xe , an
t e awar
ma e by the
Adjudicator after such time is illegal, ultra vires,
Bhagwati J. inoperative and void.
(2) In any case the State Government had extended 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 Tribunal 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
275
"(9).
Tbe decision shall be in writing, and shall
1952
bbe phronouncbed in openb courtf ahnd Tda~bed t"Ln1
d signhed
Yishwamitra
y t e mem er or mem ers o t e
ri nna , as t e p. 6
K
1
,
.
.
. ,,
r ss
arya a,ya
case may be, at the tune of pronouncmg 1t.
•
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 number 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
36
276
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1953)
195•
day afterwards on which the Industrial Court was
V . h
.t
open, i.e., the 2nd July, 1951. Prima ;acie therefore
is wa1n1 ra
.
J
1
p,.,, Karyataya the award which was pronounced on the 2nd July,
v.
1961, was well within time.
,,
The Worker• 0!
The ouly thing which Shri Khaitan counsel for the
Vishwat1iitra
II
t
db f
h
f
h
h I
a.ppe au urge
e ore us t ere ore wast at t e ndnsPrm.
trial Court was not a court within the meaning of secBhag<eati J.
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 conferred 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 decision 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.
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.