| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1960 SLG 175 1960 SLD 175 1960 AIR 777 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. 404 of 1958. Appeal by special leave from the decision Dated March 10, 1958, of the Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot, in Adjudication Case No. 67 of 1955, On 3 March, 1960
P GAJENDRAGADKAR, GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B.
M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India, R. J. Kolah, S. N. Andley, J. B. Dadachanji, Rameshwar Nath and P. L. Vohra, for the appellants. Janardan Sharma, for respondent No. 2.
Civil Appeal No. 404 of 1958. Appeal by special leave from the decision Dated March 10, 1958, of the Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot, in Adjudication Case No. 67 of 1955, On 3 March, 1960
P GAJENDRAGADKAR, GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B.
M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India, R. J. Kolah, S. N. Andley, J. B. Dadachanji, Rameshwar Nath and P. L. Vohra, for the appellants. Janardan Sharma, for respondent No. 2.
The Associated Cement Companies
VS
Their Workmen
Law:
Section:
ACT: Industrial Dispute-Award-Notice, of Termination-Whether can be given by minority union-Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (14 Of 1947), ss. 18, 19(6). HEADNOTE: The appellant's workmen were represented by a Union called Kamdar Mandal Cement Works, Porbandar. The registration of the said union was cancelled and that led to the formation of two Unions, the Cement Kamdar Mandal and Cement Employees Union. The Cement Kamdar Mandal gave two notices one after another to the appellant, purporting to terminate two previous awards, wherein the defunct union represented the workmen. Thereafter the Mandal presented fresh demands and the dispute was referred to the Tribunal. The second union, the Cement Employees' Union which represented the majority of the appellant's workmen at Porbandar had been impleaded in the proceedings. The appellant raised preliminary objections before the Tribunal against the competency of the reference inter alia on the ground that the award in question by which the parties were bound had not been duly terminated under s. 19(6) of the Act in as much as the union which purported to terminate the said award represented only a minority of workmen bound by it. The Tribunal by its interlocutory found against the appellant. The dispute between the parties centres round the question as to who can issue the notice terminating the award on behalf of workmen who are bound by the award as a result of s. 18 of the Act. The question therefore for decision is whether a registered trade union representing a minority of workmen governed by an award can give notice to the other party intimating its intention to terminate the award under s. 19(6) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Held, that the effect of s. 18 is that an award properly made by an industrial tribunal governs the employer and all those who represent him under s. 18(c) and the employees who are parties to the dispute and all those who are included in s. 18(b) and (d). On a fair and reasonable reading of s. 19(6), the true position is that, though the expression "any party bound by the award" refers to all workmen bound by the award, notice to terminate the said award can be given not by an…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492