Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. v. The Workmen

FACTS

• The Delhi Administration referred an industrial dispute between the Management of Delhi Cloth Mills (DCM) and Swatantra Bharat Mills (SBM) and their workmen to a Special Industrial Tribunal for adjudication under Section 10(1) and Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

• The dispute arose over the claim of bonus, leading to demonstrations and strikes.

• The reference order contained specific Issues, including:

  • Issue 3 (DCM): Whether the strike and subsequent lockout were justified and legal, and whether workmen were entitled to wages for the lockout period.

  • Issue 4 (SBM): Whether the 'sit-down' strike was justified and legal, and whether workmen were entitled to wages for the strike period.

• The Management raised a preliminary objection before the Tribunal, arguing that the Union could not dispute the fact that a strike or sit-down strike had occurred, as this fact was the foundation of the reference.

ISSUES

1. Whether the Tribunal, in adjudicating the reference, had the jurisdiction to allow the parties to dispute the existence of the very strike/sit-down strike which formed the basis of Issues 3 and 4 in the order of reference.

2. Whether the Tribunal's jurisdiction was strictly limited to determining the justification and legality of the strikes and lockouts, and the resultant claim for wages.

JUDGEMENT

• The apex court ruled that the Management's preliminary objection regarding Issues 3 and 4 is valid.

• The Court implicitly set aside the Tribunal's ruling that allowed parties to adduce evidence to confirm or deny the fact of the strikes/sit-down strikes.

OBSERVATION & JURISDICTION OF INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

The Court's observation is critical for defining the limits of an Industrial Tribunal's jurisdiction once a matter has been validly referred:

• Scope of Reference: The Court held that the Tribunal's jurisdiction is limited only to the dispute referred to it. An Industrial Adjudicator has no general or inherent jurisdiction to cover all matters which a party might raise for the first time.

• Binding Nature of Facts in Reference: The Tribunal was required to examine Issues 3 and 4 on the basis that there was a strike at the DCM unit and a sit-down strike at SBM.

  • The Limit: A Tribunal cannot allow the parties to go a stage further and contend that the foundation of the dispute mentioned in the order of reference was non-existent and that the true dispute was something else.

  • Reasoning: Once the appropriate Government (the Delhi Administration in this case) was satisfied that a dispute relating to a strike existed and referred it, the fact of the strike itself became the foundation of the reference.

• Tribunal's Task: The Tribunal's duty was confined to examining the evidence only on the question as to whether the strikes were justified and legal, and then to decide whether the workmen were entitled to wages for the relevant periods.