AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.—The appellant is the employer. It is aggrieved by the fact that the dispute between it and one of it''s former
employees was referred for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal functioning at Chennai.
According to the appellant, the said Tribunal at Chennai has no jurisdiction to try the matter, as the appellant does not have its industry at
Chennai and the former employee had not been employed by it at any place within the State of Tamil Nadu. He had been employed outside the
State and the place at which he was working at the time his employment was terminated was at Bharuch in Gujarat. The employer has its head
office at Delhi. It does not have a branch at Chennai or elsewhere in the State of Tamil Nadu.
Learned counsel for the appellant took us through the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and also referred us to several judgments of the
Supreme Court and various High Courts in support of his submission that the object of the Industrial Disputes Act is to promote industrial peace
and in order to achieve that object any dispute concerning an industry and it''s workmen should be tried and decided by a Labour Court or a
Tribunal, which functions at or near the place where that industry is located or the place at which the workman had worked. The decisions, on
which the counsel relied, were decisions which were rendered in the context of rival claims regarding which Government was the appropriate
Government to make a reference and in that context the Courts had to consider as to whether the dispute that was required to be resolved had
greater nexus with one or the other State, as the State with which the dispute had the greater nexus would become the appropriate Government
and the jurisdiction of the Labour Court or the Tribunal would be dependant upon the Government of the State in which that Court or Tribunal is
situated being the appropriate government.
In this case, it is unnecessary to launch an enquiry as to which is the appropriate Government, as it is admitted that the appropriate Government
in the case of the appellant, which is engaged in the business of oil exploration, is the Central Government. That fact is undisputed. The Central
Government, in exercise of the powers given to it u/s 7-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, has constituted several Industrial Tribunals, which are
located in different parts of the country. Section 7-A of the Act reads thus:-
7-A. Tribunals--(1) The appropriate Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute one or more Industrial Tribunals for the
adjudication of industrial disputes relating to any matter, whether specified in the Second Schedule or the Third Schedule and for performing such
other functions as may be assigned to them under this Act.
(2) A Tribunal shall consist of one person only to be appointed by the appropriate Government.
(3) A person shall not be qualified for appointment as the presiding officer of a Tribunal unless--
(a) he is, or has been, a Judge of a High Court; or
(aa) he has, for a period of not less than three years, been a District Judge or an Additional District Judge;
(4) The appropriate Government may, if it so thinks fit, appoint two persons as assessors to advise the Tribunal in the proceeding before it.
This provision which empowers the Central Government to constitute one or more Tribunals does not require the Government to further specify
the area over which the Tribunal shall have jurisdiction nor does it provide that the headquarters designated for the Tribunal shall be the limit of its
jurisdiction. The section does not make any reference to geographical area. All that the notification is required to set out is to specify the matters as
mentioned in the second schedule or the third schedule to the Act in regard to which the Industrial Tribunal may adjudicate.
The notification issued by the Central Government constituting the Central Government Industrial Tribunal at Chennai does not specify any
geographical area. The Tribunal will have to try such cases as are referred to it by the Central Government and it has no jurisdiction to decline to
adjudicate any case that is referred to it by the Central Government as long as it is not disputed that the Central Government is the appropriate
Government for making the reference and what has been referred to it is an industrial dispute.
Learned counsel however submitted that there are indications in other provisions of the Act, which would warrant a geographical limitation being
placed on the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.
In this context, reference was made to Section 4 of the Act, which deals with Conciliation Officers. Counsel referred to Section 4(2), which
provides that a Conciliation Officer can be appointed for a specified area or for specified industries in a specified area or for one or more specified
industries and either permanently or for a limited period. The argument was that as every dispute has to be first conciliated upon and the
Conciliation Officer has jurisdiction over a specified area, the ultimate adjudication of that dispute must naturally be by a Court or a Tribunal which
has jurisdiction over the area in which the Conciliation Officer had conciliated.
The Conciliation Officer himself or herself has no power to make a reference to the Tribunal or the Court. The Conciliation Officer can only
record a settlement or, in the event of failure, submit a report regarding that failure. It is then for the concerned Government to decide whether or
not to make a reference. That decision of the Government is it''s decision and not the decision of the Conciliation Officer. While making the
reference, the Government is in no way trammelled by the fact that the Conciliation Officer who had made the report had a limited area within
which he could function. It is open to the Government to make the ultimate reference for adjudication of the dispute either to a Labour Court or to
an Industrial Tribunal, depending on the nature of the dispute and there is no compulsion in any part of the Act that the Government must make the
reference only to Tribunal or Court, which is constituted in the area over which the conciliation officer had functioned. In any event, in this case the
conciliation took place at Chennai and the reference made is to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal at Chennai.
Learned counsel then submitted that in the scheme of the Act a special provision has been made for creation of a National Industrial Tribunal
for adjudication of questions of national importance or questions which affect industries located in more than one State and it is only such a
Tribunal created u/s 7-B which can deal with disputes concerning industries which may be located in any corner of the country, but that a Tribunal
constituted u/s 7-A must be regarded as being one which is limited to a territory. The implication of the argument is that if the seat of the Tribunal is
located within a State, it''s jurisdiction in any case should be regarded as extending not beyond the State in which it is located.
Section 7-B enables the Central Government to constitute one or more National Industrial Tribunals. Such Tribunals may be constituted
where, in the opinion of the Central Government, disputes involving questions of national importance arise or the industrial disputes are of such a
nature that industrial establishments situated in more than one State are likely to be affected by such disputes. The fact that the Central Government
has such a power u/s 7-B to constitute a National Tribunal does not on that score warrant a limitation being read into Section 7-A, with regard to
the geographical area over which a Tribunal constituted under that provision is to exercise jurisdiction.
It is a moot point as to whether the Central Government itself can demarcate such geographical areas while constituting Tribunals u/s 7-A of
the Act. The Central Government possibly has such a power. However, in the notification constituting the Tribunal at Chennai there is no such
limitation spelt out with regard to the area over which it can function. What the Tribunal is concerned with is the dispute that is referred to it and it is
for the parties concerned with that dispute to place the necessary evidence before that Tribunal to enable it to adjudicate the dispute. In this case it
is not the case of the appellant that the dispute itself is not an industrial dispute or that the Central Government is not the appropriate Government.
What is being really canvassed before us is a matter of practical convenience. The fact that the appellant has it''s headquarters at Delhi, had it''s
place of work at Bharuch in Gujrat and not in the State of Tamil Nadu, apparently causes inconvenience to it in having to bring its witnesses to the
Industrial Tribunal at Chennai and it also causes some additional expenditure. It is open to the appellant to apply to the Central Government u/s
33B of the Industrial Disputes Act which is a provision designed to meet situations like the present one.
Where an appropriate Government has constituted more than one Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court and parties find for good reasons that it
is necessary to request transfer of disputes from one such Court or Tribunal to another, it is open to them to make a request to the appropriate
Government u/s 33-B of the Act and that Government is under a duty to consider that request and to deal with it in a manner which is fair and
decide the request after giving reasons.
The fact that the Central Government as the appropriate Government has constituted several Tribunals and located the headquarters in
different corners of the country may indeed cause inconvenience in cases like the present one where a former employee has sought to raise a
dispute in the place where he is residing. For an employer who has a work force drawn from different corners of the country, it would indeed be
extremely inconvenient and would amount to harassment if such an employer were to be made party to disputes raised by it''s former employees
after they return to their respective home States and in having to answer their claims in different corners of the country. But, that is an aspect which
can very well be conveyed to the Central Government when a request is made for transfer of the dispute u/s 33-B of the Act. Each request for
transfer of the of the reference has to be examined on it''s own merits by the appropriate government.
A Tribunal constituted by the Central Government cannot decline to adjudicate the dispute referred to it, merely because in the view of one of
the parties before it the Central Government should have referred the dispute to an another Tribunal.
The Central Government has jurisdiction and is competent to assert authority in every nook and corner of the country and it has the power to
constitute Industrial Tribunals and Labour Courts with their headquarters at places which, in it''s opinion, would serve the larger purpose of the Act
in ensuring speedy adjudication, with minimum inconvenience to the parties to the industrial disputes referred by it in cases where it is the
appropriate government. If, as felt by the appellant, the Central Government has in this case erred in choosing to refer the dispute to the Tribunal at
Chennai, the appellant can have recourse to Section 33-B of the Act. Leaving that remedy open to the appellant, this appeal is dismissed.