Industrial dispute reference and employer status: later lessee not bound, making section 33A complaints not maintainable.

A reference under the Industrial Disputes Act directed to the management of a sugar factory was held not to be proceedings against the company in liquidation, because actual management had passed to a court-sanctioned lessee and the liquidator was no longer in control; leave of the winding-up court under section 171 of the Companies Act was therefore unnecessary. The Court also held that, for sections 33 and 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, the relevant employer must be the same employer who was party to the industrial dispute and in subsisting relationship with the workmen when the reference began. A later lessee who was neither impleaded nor a successor, assign, or benamidar was not bound by the reference or award, so the section 33A complaints were not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the reference and consequential proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal were proceedings against the company in liquidation so as to require leave of the winding-up court under section 171 of the Indian Companies Act. (ii) Whether the appellant lessee was the "employer" within sections 33 and 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and whether the complaints under section 33A were maintainable.

Issue (i): Whether the reference and consequential proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal were proceedings against the company in liquidation so as to require leave of the winding-up court under section 171 of the Indian Companies Act.

Analysis: The reference under section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act was made to the management of the sugar factory, not to the company in liquidation as such. The company's name in the appendix only identified the factory, while actual management had passed to the lessee under a court-sanctioned lease. The liquidator was no longer in management and the Tribunal's proceedings were, in substance, directed against the then management of the factory. On that construction, the proceedings were not proceedings against the company in liquidation.

Conclusion: The proceedings were not against the company in liquidation, and the question of leave under section 171 did not arise.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant lessee was the "employer" within sections 33 and 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and whether the complaints under section 33A were maintainable.

Analysis: The expression "employer" in sections 33 and 33A was held to mean the employer who was a party to the industrial dispute and whose relationship with the workmen existed when the reference commenced. A stranger to that dispute, or a later lessee who had not been brought before the Tribunal and was not a successor, assign, or benamidar of the earlier management, could not be bound by the reference. Since the appellant came into possession after the reference and had not been served or impleaded, it was not bound by the reference or the award. Consequently, no obligation to obtain permission under section 33 arose, and the complaints under section 33A could not be entertained.

Conclusion: The appellant was not the relevant employer for sections 33 and 33A, and the section 33A complaints were not maintainable.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to proceed on the complaints, the High Court's order was set aside, and the writ quashing the miscellaneous cases was granted.

Ratio Decidendi: For sections 33 and 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the employer must be the identical employer concerned in the industrial dispute and in subsisting relationship with the workmen at the commencement of the reference; a later transferee or lessee who is not party to the reference is not bound by those sections.

---