Must Read

M.N. Clubwala v. Fida Hussain Saheb, 1964

Image
M.N. Clubwala v. Fida Hussain Saheb, (1964) 6 SCR 642, 651 This case interpretation/case summary is written by Ms. Swati Sharma a student at the Faculty of Law (Delhi University). If you also want to publish your articles or case interpretations/summaries, send your work to  niyamskanoon09@gmail.com . Case Details PETITIONER:  MRS. M. N. CLUBWALA AND ANR. Vs. RESPONDENT: FIDA HUSSAIN SAHEB AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/02/1964 BENCH: MUDHOLKAR, J.R. SUBBARAO, K. CITATION: 1965 AIR 610 1964 SCR (6) 642 Introduction   The case of M.N. Clubwala v. Fida Hussain Saheb (1964) under the Delhi Rent Control Act is a landmark judgment that clarifies the distinction between a lease and a license and the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller. The primary issue in this case was whether the agreements between the landlord (M.N. Clubwala) and the shopkeepers (Fida Hussain Saheb) created a lease or a license.  Facts of the Case M.N. Clubwala (Landlord) used his building as market by
Post a Comment

Sirsilk Ltd. v. Government of Andhra Pradesh (1964) 2 SCR 448: AIR 1964 SC 160


Sirsilk Ltd. v. Government of Andhra Pradesh (1964) 2 SCR 448: AIR 1964 SC 160


This case interpretation/case summary is written by Mr. Sonu Choudhary, a student at the Faculty of Law (Delhi University). If you also want to publish your articles or case interpretations/summaries, send your work to niyamskanoon09@gmail.com.


Sirsilk Ltd. v. Government of Andhra Pradesh (1964) 2 SCR 448: AIR 1964 SC 160

Introduction


We all have read Section 17(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which places an obligation on the appropriate Government to publish the report or award made by any board or labour court or tribunal within 30 days of receiving such report or award. Also, we are well acquainted with Section 18(1) of the same Act which had been introduced by Act 36 of 1956. This, Section 18(1), states that any settlement made between the parties shall be binding to them. 

In the present case, a very interesting issue has come before the Apex court whereby a conflict between both the sections i.e. s.18(1) & s.17(1) has been raised. So please read this case summary of “Sirsilk Ltd. v. Government of Andhra Pradesh (1964)” very carefully to understand how the Supreme Court had made a via media between Section 17(1) and Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in case of their conflict.


Facts of the Case


  1. In a dispute referred to the industrial tribunal, an award had been passed by the tribunal which was yet to be published by the government. But before the publication of the award, both the contesting parties entered into a settlement agreement. 

  2. Then a letter signed by both the contesting parties requesting the Government not to publish the award was sent to the Government. However, the Government expressed its inability to withhold the publication of the award due to the mandatory nature of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, of 1947.

  3. Thereupon a writ petition was filed by the appellant in the High Court which had been dismissed by holding that the duty assigned to the Government under Section 17 is mandatory. 

  4. Therefore the appellant came before the Supreme Court.


Issues before the Supreme Court


  1. Whether the duty to publish the award imposed by Section 17, IDA on the Government is mandatory or directory?

  2. Whether the Government is able to withhold the publication of the award under S.17 in case of a settlement arrived by the party which is binding to the parties under S.18(1) of the Act?


Appellant’s Contentions


  1. Publication of tribunal awards under Section 17 is directory and not mandatory.

  2. Even if S.17 is a mandatory provision, there must be a mid-way to avoid the conflict between Section 17(1) and Section 18(1) of the Act both of which are mandatory and binding. 

  3. The main purpose of the Act is to maintain peace between the employees and employees. Therefore a settlement arrived by the parties itself which is binding shall be preferred over an award of a tribunal.


Decision and Reasoning of the Supreme Court


  1. The duty cast on the appropriate Government to publish the award made by a tribunal under Section 17 is mandatory. The Parliament never intended it to be a mere directory in nature.

  2. Though S.17(1) is mandatory, in a situation like the present case it is the best possible way to resolve the conflict is to withhold the publication of the award. Because the settlement arrived at by the parties becomes binding as soon as it is signed by the parties but an award becomes binding on the parties only after its publication by the government.


Conclusion


Ordinarily, the publication of an award made by the tribunal is mandatory under S.17(1). But in some situations to reconcile the provisions of S.18(1) and S.18(3) of the Act, the government can withhold the publication of the award.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular Post

Ashbury Railway Carriage and Iron Co. Ltd. v. Riche (1875)

Image
Ashbury railway carriage v riche|| Case Summary  Introduction   This case is related to the " Doctrine of Ultra Vires". In this case, the directors of the appellant company made an agreement with the plaintiff which was beyond the objectives, as mentioned in its MoA, of the appellant Company. Since the agreement was beyond its objectives, the appellant company repudiated the agreement later. Therefore the suit was brought by the plaintiff to recover the damages. Facts   The directors of the appellant company (Ashbury Railway Carriage) had contracted to obtain a concession from Gillon and Poeters Baerston, who obtained this right from the Belgian Government, to make a railway.  For this purpose, the directors of the appellant company again entered into a contract with Riche, a contractor, the purpose of which was to establish a société anonyme,  and as the plaintiff went on with the work, the appellant company had to pay into the hands of société anonyme,  Earlier the sharehol
Read more

Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate, AIR 1958 SC 353

Image
Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate, AIR 1958 SC 353 Case Summary Introduction The case of Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate involved a dispute between the management of the Dimakuchi Tea Estate and its workers. This case has discussed and cleared the meaning of the expression "any person" used in S.2(K) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of a limited interpretation of the term "any person" thereby excluding the present appellant from the ambit of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947. This decision denied the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal to adjudicate the dispute and extended the benefits and protections of the Act to the employers. Facts of the Case The dispute was raised over the termination of the service of Dr K.P. Banerjee, who was appointed as an Assistant Medical Officer in the Respondent's estate (Dimakuchi Tea Estate), on the grounds of being incompetent. Although th
Read more