Conciliation Officer permission orders are not tribunal decisions and are outside appellate jurisdiction under Article 136 and the 1950 Act.

A permission-granting Conciliation Officer under clause 29 of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Order, 1954 was not a tribunal for Article 136 because, although required to act judicially, he lacked the judicial power of the State and had no court-like procedure, power to take evidence on oath, compel witnesses, adjudicate disputes, or issue a binding award. The resulting direction was therefore not appealable to the Supreme Court. It was also not appealable to the Labour Appellate Tribunal under the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950, because that Act covers adjudicatory awards or decisions of industrial tribunals or analogous authorities, not a conciliation officer's permission order.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution lay against the Conciliation Officer's direction under clause 29 of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Order, 1954. (ii) Whether an appeal lay to the Labour Appellate Tribunal under the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950 against that direction.

Issue (i): Whether an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution lay against the Conciliation Officer's direction under clause 29 of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Order, 1954.

Analysis: A direction is appealable under Article 136 only if it is a judicial or quasi-judicial determination made by a court or tribunal. The Conciliation Officer, while required to act judicially when deciding whether to grant permission to alter service conditions or dismiss workmen, was not invested with the judicial power of the State. The scheme of the 1954 Order gave him no court-like procedure, no power to take evidence on oath or compel witnesses, no power to adjudicate industrial disputes, and no authority to pronounce a binding award. His function was limited to removing a statutory ban on the employer's common-law power in specified circumstances.

Conclusion: The Conciliation Officer was not a tribunal within Article 136, and no appeal lay to this Court.

Issue (ii): Whether an appeal lay to the Labour Appellate Tribunal under the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950 against that direction.

Analysis: The appellate jurisdiction under section 4 of the 1950 Act extends to awards or decisions of industrial tribunals or equivalent authorities constituted for industrial adjudication. A Conciliation Officer acting under clause 29 was not an industrial tribunal constituted for adjudication of disputes, and his direction was not an award or definitive decision determining rights in the manner contemplated by the Act. The reference to "other authority" in section 2(c)(iii) was read in context as an adjudicatory body of like character, which the Conciliation Officer was not.

Conclusion: No appeal lay to the Labour Appellate Tribunal under the 1950 Act.

Final Conclusion: The Conciliation Officer's permission order was held to be outside the appellate jurisdiction of both the Supreme Court under Article 136 and the Labour Appellate Tribunal under the 1950 Act, with the result that the appeals failed.

Ratio Decidendi: An authority is a tribunal for Article 136 only if, in addition to acting judicially, it is invested with the judicial power of the State and possesses adjudicatory trappings sufficient to decide disputes as a court-like body; a permission-granting conciliation officer with no such adjudicatory power is not a tribunal and his direction is not an appealable award or decision.

---