HOCHTIEF GAMMON Vs. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL BHUBANESHWAR ORISSA
LAWS(SC)-1964-4-23
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ORISSA)
Decided on
April 01,1964
HOCHTIEF GAMMON
Appellant
VERSUS
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL,BHUBANESHWAR,ORISSA
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
ANIL KUMAR UPADHAYA VS. P K SARKAR [REFERRED]P G BROOKES RECEIVER APPOINTED VS. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL MADRAS [REFERRED]
RADHAKRISHNA MILLS LTD VS. SPECIAL INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL MADRAS [REFERRED]
Cited Judgements :-
ALFA LAVAL I LTD VS. K D WAGHMARE [LAWS(BOM)-2002-3-56] [REFERRED TO]MUMBAI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY PVT LTD VS. AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-2008-4-555] [RELIED ON]
LUMTEX CORPORATION VS. DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND ORS. [LAWS(GJH)-2015-4-83] [REFERRED TO]
LUFTHANSA GERMAN AIRLINES VS. GLOBE GROUND INDIA EMPLOYEES UNION [LAWS(DLH)-2014-4-82] [REFERRED TO]
GUJARAT KAMGAR PANCHAYAT VS. DIRECTOR, GUJARAT CANCER RESEARCH INSTITUTE [LAWS(GJH)-2022-2-1086] [REFERRED TO]
MAZDOOR CONGRESS VS. N L BHALCHANDRA MEMBER INDUSTRIAL COURT BOMBAY [LAWS(BOM)-1993-3-52] [REFERRED TO]
NAI DUNIA VS. HEMLAL SAHU [LAWS(CHH)-2024-5-21] [REFERRED TO]
KERALA STATE CO-OP E FRONT VS. CHANDRAMATHI AMMA [LAWS(KER)-1996-3-70] [REFERRED TO]
UDAIPUR PHOSPHATES AND FERTILIZERS LIMITED VS. GUJARAT MAZDOOR KRANTI UNION [LAWS(GJH)-1997-4-14] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGEMENT OF PREMIER MILLS LTD VS. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT [LAWS(MAD)-2000-11-20] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGEMENT OF E I D PARTY INDIA LTD VS. PRESIDING OFFICER [LAWS(MAD)-2018-2-159] [REFERRED TO]
HINDUSTAN PETROLEUME CORPORATION LTD VS. PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT LABOUR COURT CUM INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL [LAWS(MAD)-2008-7-370] [REFERRED TO]
LOOMTEX CORPORATION VS. LABOUR COURT, AHMEDABAD AND ANOTHER [LAWS(GJH)-2016-1-55] [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN PETROCHEMICALS CORP LTD VS. AJITDAN GULABDAN GADHVI [LAWS(GJH)-2004-7-62] [REFERRRED TO]
KERALA STATE ELECY BOARD VS. LABOUR COURT [LAWS(KER)-1994-6-12] [REFERRED TO]
GUJARAT INDUSTRIAL COOP BANK THRO LIQUIDATOR VS. GUJARAT INDUSTRIAL COOP BANK STAFF UNION [LAWS(GJH)-2014-3-206] [REFERRED TO]
ORISSA COTTON MILLS VS. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT AND 2 ORS. [LAWS(ORI)-2008-10-68] [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN COPPER CORPORATION LIMITED VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS [LAWS(PAT)-1971-7-20] [REFERRED TO]
VIKAS ADHIKARI PANCHAYAT SAMITI BHADRA VS. SURENDRA KUMAR SHARMA [LAWS(RAJ)-1999-8-19] [REFERRED TO]
U P STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-1996-5-31] [REFERRED TO]
GLAXO SMITHKLINE CONSUMER HEALTH CARE LTD VS. SECOND LABOUR COURT [LAWS(CAL)-2010-12-80] [REFERRED TO]
DEVENDRA KUMAR & ANOTHER VS. PRESIDING OFFICER & 2 OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2019-1-166] [REFERRED TO]
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK VS. VITRO PHARMA PRODUCTS LTD [LAWS(BOM)-1997-4-84] [REFERRED TO]
GENERAL SECRETARY VS. TALUKA DEVLOPMENT OFFICER [LAWS(GJH)-2021-9-1074] [REFERRED TO]
MAZDOOR CONGRESS VS. N L BHALCHANDRA [LAWS(BOM)-1993-9-17] [REFERRED TO]
BHAGWATI VS. CUSTODIAN GENERAL [LAWS(J&K)-1975-3-4] [REFERRED TO]
KANTABEN VS. PARSI DAIRY FARMS [LAWS(BOM)-1984-11-27] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNAN PANICKER K VS. HINDUSTAN MACHINE TOOLS LTD [LAWS(KER)-1999-8-12] [REFERRED TO]
NAZRUL HASSAN SIDDIQUI VS. PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVENMENT INDUSTRIAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL CUM LABOUR COURT [LAWS(MPH)-1996-7-64] [REFERRED TO]
MINERAL EXPLORATION CORPORATION LTD VS. MINERAL EXPLORATION CORPORATION EMPLOYEES UNION [LAWS(MPH)-1999-2-13] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHAK BHARATI COOPERATIVE LTD. VS. CHEMICAL MAZDOOR PANCHAYAT [LAWS(GJH)-2014-11-8] [REFERRED TO]
ORISSA FOREST CORPORATION LTD. VS. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT [LAWS(ORI)-1987-4-17] [REFERRED TO]
ROCA RANIPET LABOUR UNION REP BY ITS SECRETARY VS. RANIPET LABOUR UNION REP BY ITS SECRETARY [LAWS(MAD)-2019-3-142] [REFERRED TO]
WONDERLA KARMIKA SANGHA VS. MANAGEMENT, WONDERLA HOLIDAYS LIMITED [LAWS(KAR)-2023-3-647] [REFERRED TO]
ADIKANDA MOHANTY & OTHERS VS. THE SECRETARY, PARADEEP PORT TRUST, PARADEEP,JAGATSINGHPUR & OTHERS [LAWS(ORI)-2016-7-8] [REFERRED TO]
N.T.P.C. LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CAL)-2014-2-45] [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN OIL PETRONAS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-2016-4-20] [REFERRED TO]
RASULBHAI PIRBHAI SHAIKH VS. JASUMATIBEN INDRAVADAN TRIVEDI WD O INDRAVADAN SHANKARLAL [LAWS(GJH)-1992-12-26] [RELIED ON]
TARA CHAND VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-1997-10-106] [REFERRED TO]
PONDICHERRY AGRO SERVICE AND INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LIMITED VS. UNION TERRITORY OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2015-2-49] [REFERRED TO]
SAINI AND COMPANY VS. GUJARAT ENGINEERING [LAWS(GJH)-2013-3-137] [REFERRED TO]
STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. PHOOLCHAND SONKHARE [LAWS(MPH)-2021-1-40] [REFERRED TO]
EMPLOYEERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF BIJURI SUB AREA SOUTH ESTERN COALFIELDS LTD VS. GENERAL SECRETARY M P KOYLA MAZDOOR SABHA [LAWS(MPH)-2006-1-105] [REFERRED TO]
FOOD CORPN OF INDIA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GAU)-2001-9-8] [REFERRED TO]
EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CAL)-2025-3-5] [REFERRED TO]
RUMA CHAKRABORTY VS. SUDHA RANI BANERJEE [LAWS(SC)-2005-10-14] [REFERRED TO]
RANIPET LABOUR UNION VS. ROCA RANIPET LABOUR UNION [LAWS(MAD)-2019-4-17] [REFERRED TO]
ANANTA KUMAR MAJHI VS. STATE OF ODISHA [LAWS(ORI)-2023-1-77] [REFERRED TO]
ANDHRA PRADESH LIMITED HYDERABAD VS. CHAIRMAN INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL 1 HYDERABAD [LAWS(APH)-2003-12-103] [REFERRED TO]
MANGROL NAGARPALIKA VS. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, JUNAGADH [LAWS(GJH)-2021-10-79] [REFERRED TO]
WESTERN INDIAN PLYWOODS LIMITED VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2003-5-32] [REFERRED TO]
WORKMEN OF NAVNIL ENTERPRISE VS. INDIAN OIL PETRONAS PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(CAL)-2017-6-77] [REFERRED TO]
KAMGARANCHAO EKVOTT VS. MUMBAI MAZDOOR SABHA [LAWS(BOM)-2004-2-4] [REFERRED TO]
S. RAMASWAMY NAIDU VS. THE SECRETARY, DISTRICT MOTOR AND LORRY TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-1980-8-49] [REFERRED TO]
BOC INDIA LIMITED VS. SHRI PARAMANANDA DAS [LAWS(ORI)-2023-1-67] [REFERRED TO]
GLOBE GROUND INDIA EMPLOYEES UNION VS. LUFTHANSA GERMAN AIRLINES AND ANOTHER [LAWS(SC)-2019-4-89] [REFERRED TO]
REGIONAL MANAGER U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. PRABHU DAYAL [LAWS(ALL)-2021-10-45] [REFERRED TO]
STATE BANK OF BIKANER VS. ALL INDIA BANK DEPOSIT COLLECTORS FEDERATION [LAWS(DLH)-2015-4-77] [REFERRED TO]
GAIL (INDIA) LTD. VS. PRESIDING OFF. CEN. GOVT. INDUS. TRI.-CUM-LAB. COURT AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-12-97] [REFERRED TO]
STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD VS. HINDUSTAN STEEL EMPLOYEES UNION [LAWS(CAL)-1997-1-34] [REFERRED TO]
WORKMEN VS. INDIAN RARE EARTHS LTD [LAWS(BOM)-2023-12-6] [REFERRED TO]
MAZDOOR SANGH TITAGHUR PAPER MILLS NO 3 VS. PRESIDING OFFICER INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL [LAWS(ORI)-1972-1-12] [REFERRED TO]
DEVI AHILYA VISHWA VIDYALAYA VS. ADDITIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER [LAWS(MPH)-2024-4-139] [REFERRED TO]
THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD WORK ESTABLISHMENT EMPLOYEES UNION VS. SRI MERCHANT [LAWS(KER)-1968-10-36] [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD VS. CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT [LAWS(ORI)-2023-7-74] [REFERRED TO]
BALLARPUR COLLIERIES CO VS. PRESIDING OFFICER C G I T DHANBAD [LAWS(SC)-1972-3-8] [DISTINGUISHED]
V LAKSHMI BAI VS. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT OLD COURT HALL COIMBATORE [LAWS(MAD)-1994-12-67] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. HARISH CHANDRA SHARMA [LAWS(RAJ)-2006-7-86] [REFERRED TO]
MAHAVEER CONDUCTOR VS. NAND KISHORE [LAWS(RAJ)-2003-1-106] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. MOHAMMAD HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER [LAWS(RAJ)-2000-2-110] [REFERRED TO]
HARDAYAL SINGH MEHTA VS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-1990-1-7] [REFERRED]
VISAKHAPATNAM CONTRAST LABOUR UNION VS. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED [LAWS(APH)-2017-4-44] [REFERRED TO]
MUKAND LTD VS. MUKAND STAFF and OFFICERS ASSOCIATION [LAWS(SC)-2004-3-25] [REFERRED]
BALLARPUR COLLIERIES COMPANY VS. SALIM M MERCHANT [LAWS(PAT)-1965-10-4] [REFERRED TO]
SURESH CHANDRA VS. GENERAL MANAGER RAJ STATE BRIDGE AND CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION [LAWS(RAJ)-2002-1-78] [REFERRED TO]
INDO GRAPHIC ART MACHINERY COMPANY P LTD VS. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT-II [LAWS(P&H)-1990-11-24] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)The short question which this appeal by special leave raises for our decision is in relation to the construction of S. 18(3) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (No. 14 of 1947) (hereinafter called 'the Act'). This question arises in this way. An industrial dispute in regard to the payment of bonus arose between the appellant Hochtief Gammon and the respondents, its workmen, represented by the Rourkela Workers Union, Rourkela. This dispute was referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Orissa by the Government of Orissa on the 14th November, 1960. After the reference was received by the Tribunal, it passed an order on the 17th November, 1960 that notice of the reference should be issued to the parties concerned. Purporting to give effect to this order, the office of the Tribunal issued notices not only to the appellant and the respondents, but also to the Deputy General Manager of M/s. Hindustan Steel Ltd. This was so done apparently because a copy of the notification of the Government of Orissa containing the order of reference had been served on the said Dy. General Manager. After the notice issued by the Tribunal was received by the Dy. General Manager of the Hindustan Steel Ltd., he appeared before the Tribunal and urged that the Hindustan Steel Ltd. was not concerned or interested in the dispute and should not be added as a party to the reference.
(2.)Meanwhile, the appellant made an application to the Tribunal on the 21st March, 1961 and contended that the interests of M/s. Hindustan Steel Ltd. and the appellant were common in the proceeding pending before the Tribunal, and so, M/s. Hindustan Steel Ltd. should be joined as a party. In this application, the appellant alleged that M/s. Hindustan Steel Ltd. was a necessary party, because the material documents which may have to be proved in the proceedings were with the said concern and, in fact, the enquiry in question would not be complete without the said concern being joined as a party. The Tribunal then considered the question of joining M/s. Hindustan Steel Ltd. as a party and held that it would decide the matter later. Meanwhile, the tribunal directed that M/s. Hindustan Steel Ltd. which had appeared in response to the notice issued to it should remain present during the hearing of the reference on the merits.
(3.)This order did not satisfy the appellant, because it wanted a specific direction from the Tribunal to add M/s. Hindustan Steel Ltd. as a party to the reference. That is why the appellant moved the Orissa High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution and prayed that the order passed by the Tribunal refusing to deal with the matter should be set aside and M/s. Hindustan Steel Ltd. should be joined as a party to the reference before it. This writ petition, however, failed, because the High Court took the view that it was premature. The High Court observed that the Industrial Tribunal had not yet passed a final order under S. 18(3) (b) of the Act, and so, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the controversy between the parties, the High Court treated the application as incompetent because it was premature. Against this decision, the appellant has come to this Court by special leave; and on his behalf, Mr. Chatterji has contended that the Industrial Tribunal has jurisdiction to add a party to the proceedings before it and that on the merits, M/s. Hindustan Steel Ltd. should be added as a necessary party. That is how the main question which arises for our decision is to determine the scope and effect of the provisions of S. 18(3) (b) of the Act.
(2.)Meanwhile, the appellant made an application to the Tribunal on the 21st March, 1961 and contended that the interests of M/s. Hindustan Steel Ltd. and the appellant were common in the proceeding pending before the Tribunal, and so, M/s. Hindustan Steel Ltd. should be joined as a party. In this application, the appellant alleged that M/s. Hindustan Steel Ltd. was a necessary party, because the material documents which may have to be proved in the proceedings were with the said concern and, in fact, the enquiry in question would not be complete without the said concern being joined as a party. The Tribunal then considered the question of joining M/s. Hindustan Steel Ltd. as a party and held that it would decide the matter later. Meanwhile, the tribunal directed that M/s. Hindustan Steel Ltd. which had appeared in response to the notice issued to it should remain present during the hearing of the reference on the merits.
(3.)This order did not satisfy the appellant, because it wanted a specific direction from the Tribunal to add M/s. Hindustan Steel Ltd. as a party to the reference. That is why the appellant moved the Orissa High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution and prayed that the order passed by the Tribunal refusing to deal with the matter should be set aside and M/s. Hindustan Steel Ltd. should be joined as a party to the reference before it. This writ petition, however, failed, because the High Court took the view that it was premature. The High Court observed that the Industrial Tribunal had not yet passed a final order under S. 18(3) (b) of the Act, and so, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the controversy between the parties, the High Court treated the application as incompetent because it was premature. Against this decision, the appellant has come to this Court by special leave; and on his behalf, Mr. Chatterji has contended that the Industrial Tribunal has jurisdiction to add a party to the proceedings before it and that on the merits, M/s. Hindustan Steel Ltd. should be added as a necessary party. That is how the main question which arises for our decision is to determine the scope and effect of the provisions of S. 18(3) (b) of the Act.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.