1993 (2) TMI 328 - SC - Indian Laws

Industrial Tribunal can grant relief predating dispute, Supreme Court upholds broad powers

SARVA SHRAMIK SANGH BOMBAY Versus INDIAN HUME PIPE CO. LTD.

The Supreme Court held that the Industrial Tribunal has the authority to grant relief from a date preceding the dispute's raising, rejecting the Division ... - Issues Involved:1. Power of the Industrial Tribunal to award relief from a date anterior to the date of raising the dispute.2. Validity and implications of the demand raised by the Labour Union.3. Interpretation of prior judicial decisions regarding the Tribunal's power to grant retrospective relief.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Power of the Industrial Tribunal to Award Relief from a Date Anterior to the Date of Raising the Dispute:The main question in this appeal was whether the Industrial Tribunal had the power to award relief from a date anterior to the date of raising the dispute by the Labour Union. The Tribunal initially awarded relief to the daily-rated workmen from January 1, 1968, despite the dispute being raised on March 19, 1973. The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court held that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to grant relief from a date prior to the date of raising the dispute, interpreting prior decisions of the Supreme Court to impose such a limitation. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, stating that there was no statutory basis for such a limitation in the Industrial Disputes Act. The Court emphasized that the Tribunal, as a substitute forum to the Civil Court, has broad powers to grant relief, including from an anterior date, if justified by the facts and circumstances of the case.2. Validity and Implications of the Demand Raised by the Labour Union:The Labour Union initially raised the demand for dearness allowance on November 2, 1965, seeking parity with monthly-rated employees. This demand was reiterated in a memorandum submitted to the Government on April 26, 1968. The Government referred the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal on July 5, 1968, but this reference was set aside by the Bombay High Court. The Union then raised a fresh demand on March 19, 1973, again seeking the benefit from November 15, 1965. The Supreme Court noted that the demand raised on March 19, 1973, was not a fresh demand but a reiteration of the earlier demand. The Court found no reason why the Tribunal could not grant relief from an earlier date if the demand itself was for such relief and was justified by the facts.3. Interpretation of Prior Judicial Decisions Regarding the Tribunal's Power to Grant Retrospective Relief:The respondent-company relied on several Supreme Court decisions to argue that the Tribunal could not grant relief from a date earlier than the date of raising the dispute. The Supreme Court examined these decisions and found that none of them imposed a statutory limitation on the Tribunal's power. The Court clarified that these decisions were context-specific and did not establish a general principle restricting the Tribunal's power. The Court emphasized that the power to grant relief from an anterior date exists and its exercise depends on the facts and circumstances of each case.Conclusion:The Supreme Court concluded that the Industrial Tribunal had the power to grant relief from a date anterior to the date of raising the dispute. The Division Bench's interpretation imposing a limitation on the Tribunal's power was incorrect. The appeal was allowed, and the Division Bench's judgment was set aside. The writ petition filed by the Management questioning the Tribunal's award was dismissed. The Tribunal's award granting relief from January 1, 1968, was upheld, and the appeal was allowed without any order as to costs.