(Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh, JJ.)
Association of Chemical Workers S.R.F. Ltd. ____________ Appellant;
v.
S.R.F. Ltd. and Another __________________________ Respondent(s).
Civil Appeal No. 2983 of 2022 [Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 11643 of 2020], decided on April 19, 2022
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal is directed against the order passed by the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court allowing the review petition filed by respondent No. 1, restoring the Writ Appeal No. 1959 of 2019 to its original number, after recalling the order already passed. This was done on the sole premise that the notification dated 26.09.2019 was not brought to the notice of the Court earlier.
3. The respondent No. 1 is a factory in the Industrial Area of District Bhind, Malanpur, Madhya Pradesh. A dispute was sought to be raised by the appellant by making a list of demands to the Conciliation Officer on 07.06.2016. Upon the issues not being resolved, the State Government made a reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act dated 17.02.2017 to the Industrial Tribunal.
4. Raising various grounds, both on merit as well as on maintainability, the respondent No. 1 filed a writ petition. The writ petition filed was dismissed and affirmed by the Division Bench. It was held that the reference is proper and the other issues raised including the one pertaining to the maintainability of the claim by an unregistered trade union can be taken up by the Tribunal itself.
5. An application for review was filed by respondent No. 1 inter alia contending that the subsequent notification dated 26.09.2019 has not been taken into account. Finding so, the Division Bench set aside its earlier order passed on merit and thus directed the parties to address the appeal once again. It is this order which is sought to be impugned before us.
6. Mr. Vinay Navare, learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted that one has to see the power conferred under Section 1(4) of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960, which facilitates the State Government to remove from the purview of the Act any industry by way of a notification. This provision has to be construed in tune with Section 110 which mandates a proceeding to be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the Central Act. The learned senior counsel draws our attention to the subsequent notification dated 05.05.2020 by which the State Government once again directed that the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 shall not apply to the industries specified in the schedule with the saving clause that cases pending before the labour court, industrial court or any other court ought to be disposed of and proceeded with as not omitted.
7. Mr. J.P. Cama, learned senior counsel for the respondent no. 1 raised a preliminary objection that no order has been passed on merit as the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court merely facilitated a fresh hearing. There is no saving clause provided under the notification dated 26.09.2019 and the one provided under the subsequent notification dated 05.05.2020 has be applied for such of those cases emanating under the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960. Thus, in substance, it is submitted that any case pending before the Industrial Tribunal on a reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act cannot be validated in the absence of a specific saving clause either under the 2019 or under the 2020 notification. Buttressing his contention, the learned senior counsel has relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd. v. Union of India, 2000 (3) SCC 536.
8. Though we could have decided the legality of the order alone under challenge before us, having heard the arguments on the issue governing, we would like to deal with it, particularly when the dispute still lies at the very preliminary stage as no adjudication on merit has happened.
9. We do not wish to go into the respective contentions raised as we find that notification dated 26.09.2019 stands superseded by the subsequent one dated 05.05.2020. Resultantly, the respondent no. 1 Industry, does not come within the purview of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960. Thus, as of now, the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act would apply. The saving clause under notification dated 05.05.2020 cannot be construed in a narrow or mechanical manner. When even the pending proceedings before the Courts in pursuance to the notification dated 26.09.2019 could be saved, there is no difficulty in holding that the other proceedings pending before the Industrial Tribunals under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 would not get abated and terminated in the absence of any saving clause under the notification dated 26.09.2019. The object of the notification is very clear. This notification has been issued in tune with Section 1, sub-section 4 of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960. In other words, a reference under the Industrial Disputes Act to a labour court is the rule as of now. The notification merely continues the pending proceedings. When pending proceedings under the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 could be continued to a logical end, one cannot say that the earlier proceedings initiated under the Industrial Disputes Act would get abated automatically. The interpretations sought to be given by the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent no. 1 would lead to absurdity. The judgment relied upon by him in Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd. (supra) does not have any application as the situation therein was different. We are primarily concerned with the power conferred under Section 1(4) of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 and the notification issued thereunder. We may note that way back in the year 2007, a notification was issued by the State Government invoking the power conferred under Section 1(3) and, therefore, the subsequent notification will have to be seen on a proper reading of Section 110(b).
10. Thus, on a conspectus of the above discussion, we set aside the order of the Division Bench in Review Petition No. 172 of 2020 dated 17.03.2020 by restoring the order passed on merit in Writ Appeal No. 1959 of 2019. The appeal stands allowed. No costs.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 11643/2020
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 17-03-2020 in RP No. 172/2020 passed by the High Court of M.P At Gwalior)
Association of Chemical Workers S.R.F. Ltd.….Petitioner(s)
v.
S.R.F. Ltd. & Anr.….Respondent(s)
IA NO. 29496/2011-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
Date: 19-04-2022
This petition was called on for hearing today.
(Before Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh, JJ.)
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Vinay Navare, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Mehul M. Gupta, Adv.
Mr. R.P. Gupta, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. J.P. Cama, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Anil Bhat, Adv.
Mr. Kuldeep Bhargav, Adv.
Dr. Brij Bhushan K Jauhari, Adv.
Mr. Aman Garg, Adv.
Ms. Purnima Jauhari, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
ORDER
11. Leave granted.
12. The appeal stands allowed in terms of the signed order.
13. No costs.
14. Pending application stands disposed of.
———
