However, vide order dated 16.10.2000, the permission was declined by the Labour Commissioner and the application filed by the appellants- Management was rejected. Plea raised by the appellants-Management before the High Court was that there being more than 100 workmen in the factory of the appellants, reference under Section 10 of the ID Act should have been made by the Labour Commissioner only to the Industrial Tribunal. 2
The appellants-Management filed an application before the Labour Court for correction of the factual error annexing documents, showing that even in the returns filed with the Employees State Insurance Corporation and Life Insurance Corporation etc., more than 100 workmen Review Petition No.46 of 2010.
The Labour Court vide order dated 30.06.2010 dealing with the objections raised by the respondents- workmen, issued notice in the application and allowed the appellants- Management to file the documents in support of its claim. In view of Section 10 of the ID Act, in cases where claim is made regarding wages and allowances as provided in the Third Schedule of the ID Act with reference to an establishment where there are more than 100 workmen employed, the reference of dispute has to be made to the Industrial Tribunal. The Labour Court while adjudicating the claims ignored the admission on the part of the representative of the respondents-workmen that there were more than 100 workmen employed with the appellants-Management.
Even the objections raised by the respondents-workmen before the Labour Court were rejected, while noticing that the workmen would have full opportunity to cross- examine the witnesses, being summoned by the appellants-Management to establish that there were more than 100 workmen employed in the establishment. When the same were placed before the High Court by the appellants-Management while challenging the Award of the Labour Court dated 10.02.2006 being prima facie satisfied with the argument, liberty was granted to move an application before the Labour Court for correction of the factual error. Mere admission by one of the representatives of the respondents-workmen, who appeared before the Labour Court, would not discharge the onus cast on the appellants- Management to prove that it had employed more than 100 workmen.
Section 10(1) of the ID Act inter alia provides that where appropriate Government is of the opinion that any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended, it may, by an order in writing, refer the dispute to the ‘Labour Court’ if it relates to the issues specified in the Second Schedule.
Reference of disputes to Boards, Courts or Tribunals:- (1) Where the appropriate Government is of opinion that any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended, it may at any time, by order in writing- (a) refer the dispute to a Board for promoting a settlement thereof; or (b) refer any matter appearing to be connected with or relevant to the dispute to a Court for inquiry; or (c) refer the dispute or any matter appearing to be connected with, or relevant to, the dispute, if it relates to any matter specified in the Second Schedule, to a Labour Court for adjudication; or (d) refer the dispute or any matter appearing to connected with, or relevant to, the dispute, whether it relates to any matter specified in the Second Schedule or the Third Schedule, to a Tribunal for adjudication: Provided that where the dispute relates to any matter specified in the Third schedule and is not likely to affect more than one hundred workmen, the appropriate Government may, if it so thinks fit, make the reference to a Labour Court under clause (c)” 8.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/retirement-age-of-pti-sports-officer-in-university/
THE THIRD SCHEDULE MATTERS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS Wages, including the period and mode of payment; 2.
Whereas the matters, as mentioned in the Third Schedule, are within the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal with the only exception that for dispute provided in the Third Schedule; if not more than 100 workmen are affected, reference is to be made to the Labour Court. Whether it is justified to restart Attendance Allowance to the workmen of the Company as was given to them earlier, to increase rate of the same and to compensate them for the discontinued period?
In this light, the stand taken by the appellants-Management is that in the establishment of the appellants-Management, there were more than 100 workmen, hence, reference of the dispute to the Labour Court was without jurisdiction and consequently, any award passed by the Labour Court is not sustainable.
The argument raised before the High Court was that there was a jurisdictional error in the order passed by the Labour Court as the Management had a strength of more than 100 workmen.
It was noticed in the order that in case the appellants-Management employed more than 100 workmen, the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate on the issue. A Writ Petition was filed by the respondents-workmen, to challenge the aforesaid orders, which was allowed by the High Court while setting aside the orders dated 30.06.2010, 12.08.2010 and 06.10.2010 passed by the Labour Court.
Case Title: HIND FILTERS LTD. Vs. HIND FILTERS EMPLOYEES UNION (2023INSC799)
Case Number: C.A. No.-008801-008801 / 2012
