Judicial review of industrial arbitration awards extends to patent errors of law, but compensation for illegal strike losses needs statutory support.

An award under Section 10A of the Industrial Disputes Act was treated as amenable to judicial review under Article 226, subject to restraint, because a statutory or quasi-statutory award is not immune from correction. The compensation award against workmen was held vulnerable for error of law on the face of the award, since liability was assumed merely from the illegality of the strike without examining the legal basis for actionable damage. The Act was also treated as a self-contained code, and its scheme did not authorise an employer's compensation claim for loss of profits as an industrial dispute or as relief enforceable through arbitration under the Act.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether an award made under Section 10A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was amenable to judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; (ii) whether the arbitrators committed an error of law on the face of the award in holding that workmen participating in an illegal strike were liable to pay compensation to the management for loss of profits; and (iii) whether the remedy for consequences of an illegal strike lay exclusively within the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, so as to exclude an award of compensation in arbitration.

Issue (i): whether an award made under Section 10A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was amenable to judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is wide enough to reach a statutory or quasi-statutory award, and an arbitrator functioning under Section 10A is not immune merely because the reference arises out of industrial conciliation. The breadth of the power, however, does not justify unrestrained interference; it remains subject to settled judicial restraint.

Conclusion: The award was amenable to correction under Article 226.

Issue (ii): whether the arbitrators committed an error of law on the face of the award in holding that workmen participating in an illegal strike were liable to pay compensation to the management for loss of profits.

Analysis: The award treated illegality of the strike as sufficient by itself to establish liability for damages. That approach assumed that every illegal strike necessarily amounted to actionable conspiracy or delict causing compensable loss, without examining the real object or predominant purpose of the combination. Liability for compensation could not be founded on that broad proposition of law, and the legal premise adopted by the arbitrators was erroneous on the face of the award.

Conclusion: The compensation portion of the award was vitiated by an error of law on its face.

Issue (iii): whether the remedy for consequences of an illegal strike lay exclusively within the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, so as to exclude an award of compensation in arbitration.

Analysis: The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is a self-contained code for industrial disputes and the rights and remedies created by it must ordinarily be enforced through the mechanism provided by the statute itself. An illegal strike is a statutory concept under Sections 23 and 24, and the Act provides a penal remedy under Section 26. The Act does not contemplate an employer's claim for compensation from workmen for loss of business or profits, nor does it define such a claim as an industrial dispute within Section 2(k).

Conclusion: The claim for compensation could not be sustained as a statutory industrial dispute or enforced by arbitration under the Act.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the compensation award succeeded, the High Court's interference was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed without costs.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory industrial arbitration award may be quashed under Article 226 when it proceeds on a patent error of law on the face of the award, and compensation for loss caused by an illegal strike cannot be awarded unless the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 itself authorises such relief.

---