CHAPTER-III

DIFFERENT AUTHORITIES OF CONCILIATION UNDER

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT
The main object of the Industrial Disputes Act is investigation
and settlement of industrial disputes. For this particular purpose
various authorities have been created under the Act. The
adjudication of industrial dispute has at the first instance been kept
out of the jurisdiction of the civil courts so that efforts may be made
for settlement of such dispute through some other agencies. The
industrial disputes are mainly settled through three different modes.
They are - (i) conciliation (ii) adjudication, and (iii) arbitration. The
various authorities for the settlement of these disputes are as under:-
I. Works Committee
Negotiation is an important communication process used to
resolve conflicts. It is voluntary, non-binding, and a process in which
parties control the outcome as well as the procedure. For this
purpose, the Act provides for constitution of works committee. The
Works Committee is an authority given under Section 3 of the
Industrial Dispute Act, which is reproduced below:-
Section 3 -(1) In the case of any Industrial establishment in which
one hundred or more workmen are employed or have been
employed on any day in the preceding twelve months, the
appropriate Government may by general or special order require the
employer to constitute in the prescribed manner a Works Committee
consisting of representatives of employers and workmen engaged in
the establishment so however that the number of representatives of
 121

workmen on the Committee shall not be less than the number of

representatives of the employer. The representatives of the
workmen shall be chosen in the prescribed manner from among the
workmen engaged in the establishment and in consultation with their
trade union, if any, registered under the Indian Trade Unions Act,
1926 (16 of 1926).
(2) It shall be the duty of the Works Committee to promote measures
for securing and preserving amity and good relations between the
employer and workmen and, to that end, to comment upon matters
of their common interest or concern and endeavour to compose any
material difference of opinion in respect of such matters.
A. Legislation
The provision for the Constitution of a works committee was,
for the first time, made in the original Industrial Disputes Act of 1947.
It has not undergone any amendment so far. These committees are
analogous to the ‘joint production committees’ in the United States,
Russia, and Britain.1 The legislatures of certain states, who have

enacted their own Acts for the investigation and settlement of

industrial disputes, have also made provision for such committees.
The Central Provinces and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act
1947, by s 21 provided for the Constitution of a works committee.2

Likewise, s 36 of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act 1960

and s 48 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act 1946 also provide
for the Constitution of joint committees.'

'Joint Production Committees in Great Britain’. ILO Publication Studies and

Reports, Series A, No. 42, p. 1.
Substituted by Amended Act no 21 of 1955.
 122

The various amendments in this section have also been made

by the different states. The appropriate government is to require an
employer of any industrial establishment where hundreds or more
workmen are employed or have been employed on any day in the
preceding twelve months to constitute a works committee. The
committee consists of representative of the employer and the
workmen engaged in the establishment, so that the number of
representatives of the workmen is not less than the number of
representative of the employer. The representative of the workmen
are to be chosen from among the workmen engaged in the
establishment and in consultations with their trade union, if any,
registered under the Trade Union Act, 1926. The intention of the
legislator in creation of works committee and dubbing it as authority
under the Act is to secure industrial harmony as between those are
engaged with working in the establishment concern and to see that
good and amicable relationship is prevalent between the employer
and the workmen and further to compose and settle the difference
between the employer and the workmen. It endeavours to compose
any material difference of opinion in respect of any matter of
common interest for various reasons. The National Commission of
Labour noted that the effectness of a Works Committee would
depend on certain factors which were lacking. They made certain
suggestions to make good the deficiencies but the recommendations
of the commission have not been implemented. The main duties of
the Works Committee are as under
(i) To take measures for securing and preserving amity and
good relations between the employer and the workmen;
 123

(ii) To comment upon the matters of their common interest;

and
(iii) To endeavour, to compose any material difference of
opinion in respect of such matter.
The main purpose to create Works Committee is to develop a
sense of partnership between the employer and the workmen. It
was held in Kemp & Co. Ltd. vs. Workmen3 that the institution of
Works Committee has been provided in the rules framed under the
Industrial Disputes Act, in order to look after the welfare and interest
of the workman, they are normally concerned with the problems
arising in the day to day working of the concern and function of the
work committee is to ascertained the grievances of the employees
and to arrive at some agreement when the occasion so arises. It is
for that said reason the Works Committee airs the grievances of
workmen and endeavour to seek amicable settlement. Works
committees are more suitable for the prevention of industrial unrest
by unit. Their main purpose is to discuss day to day affairs in a
cordial atmosphere of mutual goodwill and friendship, in the
premises of the factory, not as to contesting parties before a
conciliation, but as friends mutually discussing things with a view to
settle and compose their differences amicably. The Works
Committee in individual establishment provides scope for discussion
of various matters. It is comparatively easier to reconcile the
differences in the initial stage when neither of the party has taken a
very hard stand. From this point of view also, Works Committees
plays an effective role in preventing industrial disputes. They can

3
1955(1) LLJ 48.
 124

also provide training ground for the workers in extending their

responsibility. The Works Committee does not supersede union
their task is only to smooth friction that may arise between the
workmen and the management in day to day work. They cannot
decide any alteration in the conditions of service by rationalization.
Regarding the nature and functions of the works committee,
speaking for the Supreme Court, Das Gupta J said:
The language used by the legislature makes it clear that
the works committees were not intended to supplant or
supersede the unions for the purpose of collective
bargaining; they are not authorized to consider real or
substantial changes in the conditions of service; their
task is only to smooth away frictions that might arise
between the workmen and the management in day to
day work. By no stretch of imagination can it be said
that the duties and functions of the works committee
included the decision on such an important matter as
the alteration in the conditions of service by
rationalization.4
It is true that the institution of work committee has been
provided in the rules framed under the Industrial Disputes Act in
order to look after the welfare and interest of the workmen. The
function and the responsibility of the work committees as their vary
nomenclature indicates can go beyond the extent of
recommendations and as such they are more or less bodies who in
the first instance endeavour to compose differences and the final

4
Ibid.
 125

decision rests with union as a whole. This however does not mean
that the recommendations of the works committees have no weight.
The decision of works committees carry great weight, but are not
conclusive. Though Works Committee has an important role to play
but has limited powers as clarified by the Supreme Court inter-alia
observing that Section 3(b) of the Act makes it clear that the Works
Committee was not intended to supplant or supersede unions for the
duties of collective bargaining. The duties and functions of Works
Committee do not include the decision of such an important matter
as the alteration in the condition of service by rationalization. The
fact, therefore, that the workmen’s representatives on the Works
Committee agreed to the introduction of the Scheme cannot make
the Scheme binding on the workmen of the union5
The works committee today are considered to be powerful
social Institution not only to secure co-operation between workers
and employers, and to make the will of employees effective on the
management but to ensure the operation of private owned concerns
in conformity to national Interests and to provide for a popular
agency for supervising the management of Nationalised
undertakings. But for the successful working of the works
committees, both the employers as well as the employees have to
fulfill certain obligations. The employers are required to abstain from
doing any thing likely to hamper the working of such committees or
councils and also they have to provide various facilities to them
necessary for the conduct of their business. The employees and
their representatives on the committees also have to abstain from

5
North Book Jute Co. Ltd. vs. Workmen NR 1960 SC 879
 126

doing anything which may hinder the operation of the undertaking or

create any sort of disorder in it.
The importance of works committees’ role in the growth of
industrial democracy cannot be over-emphasized. But it is also
definite that if they have to exist in the country, they should do so as
live and vigorous institutions. The experience gained from the
functioning of these committees has an educative value. It is clear
that unless there is a change of heart and outlook and a genuine
desire to understand and appreciate the view-point of each other,
joint consultation machinery imposed from outside will hardly serve
any purpose. The effectiveness of these committees will depend on
(a) a more responsive attitude on the part of management;
(b) adequate support from unions;
(c) proper appreciation of the scope and functions of the works
committees;
(d) whole-hearted implementation of the recommendations of the
works committees; arid
(e) proper co-ordination of the functions of the multiple bipartite
institutions at the plant level now in vogue. Obviously, a vital point
which requires to be recognized is, thus, the creation of an
atmosphere of trust on both sides. Unions should feel that
management is not side-tracking the effective union through a works
committee. Management should equally realize that some of their
known prerogatives are meant to be parted with. Basic to the
success of such unit level committees is union recognition. Where a
recognized union exists, as under the B.I.R. Act, and it has accepted
 127

the responsibility of the arrangement, joint committees have a better

performance.
B. Experience of Works Committee in the Industry
In certain cases, works committees have functioned quite
successfully to the mutual advantage of workmen and their
employers in avoiding serious and difficult situations like litigation,
strikes and lockouts, etc. Some of the factors that have generally
contributed to the success of works committees are:
(a) existence of cooperation and cordial relations between workers
and the management and also trade union;
(b) sympathetic attitude by management, especially in encouraging
workers to put forward their grievances and suggestions;
(c) foresight of managements in having prior consultation with the
works committees before bringing any changes in respect of welfare
measures, service conditions, etc;
(d) higher education standards amongst workers; and
(e) framing of model Constitution and bye-laws for the works
committees.
On the other hand, there have been formidable difficulties in the
smooth functioning of the works committees some of which are:
(a) lack of appreciation on the part of the management and the
workmen’s representatives of the functions and significance of the
committees;
(b) illiteracy and lack of understanding amongst the workers,
especially those employed in backward areas;
(c) disinclination of workers’ representatives on the works committee
to participate in the deliberations of the committee;
 128

(d) too high an expectation by workers from their representatives

who, being unable to satisfy the high expectations, become
unpopular and are disinclined to serve on the committees; and
(e) lack of cooperation of the trade union leaders and in some cases
even their opposition to the Constitution and functioning of the works
committees on account of the fear that their own representative
character will cease, if works committees function.
There have been instances of trade unions regarding the works
committees as their rivals; and of opposing the formation of works
committees due to inter-union rivalry.6 The Second National
Commission on Labour, while recognising that workers participation
in management introduced statutorily through the institution of works
committees had not been successful, perhaps because of the
method of Constitution or works committees and the functions
assigned to these committees,7 recommended that the works
committee should be substituted by an industrial relations committee
to promote in-house dispute settlement.8
II. Conciliation Officers
Section - 4 of the Act9 which is reproduced below, is meant
for the appointment of the conciliation officers by the appropriate
government
Section - 4 : (1) The appropriate Government may, by
notification, in the Official Gazette, appoint such number of persons

6 For the critical analysis of the functioning of works committees, report submitted
by the Ministry of Labour Government of India, at the 17th session of the Indian
Labour Conference, Madras-summary of conclusions, 72-74.
7 Government of India, 2002, Report of the Second National Commission on
Labour, Conclusions and Recommendations, Chap 13, p 116, para 12.48.
8 Ibid, p 105, para 11.83.
9 Industrial Disputes Act, Sec.4.
 129

as it thinks fit to be conciliation officers, charged with the duty of

mediating in and promoting the settlement of industrial disputes.
(2) A conciliation officer may be appointed for a specified area
or for specified industries in a specified area or for one or more
specified industries and either permanently or for a limited period.
A. Legislation
In the repealed Indian Trade Disputes Act of 1929, there was
no provision for the appointment of conciliation officers. The
conciliation machinery in that Act consisted only of a ‘Board of
Conciliation’ which by experience proved to be inadequate to meet
the situation. Consequently, s18A was added to that Act in 1938
whereby the Central and provincial governments were authorised to
appoint ‘Conciliation Officers’ to act as ‘mediators’ in ‘trade
disputes’,10 and this provision has been reincarnated in s 4 of the
Industrial Disputes Act 1947.
It is discretionary on the part of the ‘appropriate government’
to appoint conciliation officers. If the government decides to make
appointment of conciliation officers, the appointment shall be by a
notification in the Official Gazette. The government again has the
discretion to appoint any number of persons to be conciliation

Section 18A was inserted in the repealed Indian Trade Disputes Act 1929 by the
Amending Act 1938 with a view to give effect to one of the recommendations of
the Royal Commission on Labour, that ‘there should be a standing conciliation
machinery in order to help workers and employers to settle their day-to-day
ordinary disputes, so that these, if not settled earlier, may not lead to a serious
strike'. Professor NG Ranga’s speech on the consideration of the clause of
Trade Disputes Amendment Bill, Legislative Assembly Debates, Vol 2, 1938,
1737; The speech of AG Glow, Labour Secretary on the consideration of clauses
of Trade Disputes Amendment Bill, Legislative Assembly Debates, Vol 2, 1938,
1722. The ‘officers were thought to be more useful instruments as watch dogs of
industrial peace than ‘Boards of conciliation’.
 130

officers as it thinks fit. The duty of conciliation officers is to mediate

in and promote the settlement of industrial disputes.11
Conciliation is an attempt by a third party through suggestions
or advice to help in the settlement of dispute between employer and
his workmen. As given in Section-4, the appropriate government is
empowered by this section to appoint such number of officers as it
thinks fir and charge them with the duty of mediating in and
promoting the settlement of industrial disputes. The Conciliation
Officer can be appointed in respect of a specified area or a specified
industries, either permanently or for a limited period. These officers
constitute the pivot on which the industrial relation machinery of the
appropriate govt, rests. The role of conciliation officers becomes
more important when bipartite negotiations fails. The conciliation
officers can take the cognizance of an existing or apprehended
dispute suo-moto or on a reference by either party. Under the Act
conciliation is compulsory in all disputes in public utility service and
is an optional in other cases. A settlement arrived at in the course of
conciliation is binding on the parties for the agreed period. The
conciliation officer is not an adjudicator of an industrial dispute. His
main function is to bring about a settlement of the dispute. For this
purpose, the conciliation officer has to investigate the dispute and all
matters affecting the merits and the right settlement thereof. The
statute give him a power to do all such things as he thinks fit for the
purpose of inducing the parties to come to a fair and amicable
settlement of the dispute. If a settlement is arrived at, the

Notes under the Head: Industrial Relations Machinery- caption ‘Mediation and
conciliation' (supra).
 131

conciliation officer is required to submit his report together with a

‘memorandum of settlement” signed by the parties to the dispute to
the appropriate Government. If no settlement is arrived at, the
conciliation officer has to submit a report to the appropriate
government under sub-section (4) of Section 12.12 Regarding
Nature of duties and roll the Karnataka High Court has observed that
the nature of duties of a conciliation officer under the Industrial
Disputes Act is quasi-judicial and he must follow principles of natural
justice in giving equal opportunities to the parties before him and as
such he committed irregularity in granting recognition for “protected
workmen” to one Union where there have been other Unions also in
the industrial establishment but he has not cared to call or implead
the other union,13. The National Commission of Labour felt that
there was need for certain urgent measures to unable the
conciliation officers to act in more effective measures. The Second
National Commission of Labour observed:
...we are of the opinion that the machinery for conciliation,
which the first commission wanted to be included as a part of the
labour relations commission, needs to be kept separate and vested
in the executive. We are also of the opinion that inspectors should
not be appointed as conciliation officers, as that may undermine
their efficiency as conciliation officers. The conciliation officer
should, however, be clothed with sufficient authority to enforce
attendance at the proceedings of conciliation. The conciliation
officers will carry out such directions as may be given by the labour

12
Industrial Disputes Act, Sec.12.
13
D.H.L Worldwide Express (I) Ltd. vs. Airfreight Employees Union 2004 LLR 421
(Karn. HC).

1
 132

relation commissions, in addition to performing their duties as

prescribed under the law.14
The recommendation in favour of keeping the machinery for
conciliation under the control of the executive, does not seem to be
well founded. Experience shows that the conciliation machinery is
gripped by the overwhelming authority of politically-oriented and
ideologically-disparate parties ruling at the Centre and in different
states. This leads to a situation where the conciliation machinery, as
five decades of experience disclose, is deprived of the freedom to
handle industrial disputes objectively, in a professional manner.
Viewed in this perspective, the recommendation of the National
Commission on Labour for entrusting the function of conciliation on
the industrial relations commissions (‘labour relations commissions’,
in the parlance of NCL-II) seems to be more realistic, than that of
NCL-II. As regards the power to enforce the attendance of the
parties, it is worthwhile to note that s11(4)15 of the IDA was amended
in 1982, whereby the conciliation officers have been vested with the
same power as of a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure
1908, in respect of enforcing the attendance of any person and
examining him or of compelling the production of documents.
The other aspects relating to conciliation technique and
procedure of conciliation and the different steps taken by the
conciliation officer have been discussed in detail in the next
chapters.

Report of the Second National Commission on Labour, Conclusions and

Recommendations, Chap 13, p 45, para 6.94.
Industrial Disputes Act, Sec. .11(4)
 133

111. Board of Conciliation

According to Section 516 which is reproduced below, an
appropriate government may constitute a board of conciliation, if an
occasion arise for promoting the settlement of industrial disputes
Section 5(1) - The appropriate Government may as occasion
arises by notification in the official Gazette constitute a Board of
Conciliation for promoting the settlement of an industrial dispute.
(2) A Board shall consist of a chairman and two or four other
members, as the appropriate government thinks fit.
(3) The chairman shall be an independent person and the
other members shall be persons appointed in equal numbers to
represent the parties to the dispute and any person appointed to
represent a party shall be appointed on the recommendation of that
party:
Provided that, if any party fails to make a recommendation as
aforesaid within the prescribed time, the appropriate Government
shall appoint such persons as it thinks fit to represent that party.
(4) A Board, having the prescribed quorum, may act
notwithstanding the absence of the chairman or any of its members
of any vacancy in its number:
Provided that if the appropriate Government notifies the Board
that the services of the chairman or of any other member have
ceased to be available, the Board shall not act until a new chairman
or member, as the case may be, has been appointed.

16
Sec. 5. Ibid.
 134

A. Legislation
Section 6 of the repealed Trade Disputes Act of 1929,
provided for the Constitution of boards while s 7 laid down the duties
of the boards. The present section is based on s 6 of the repealed
Act of 1929.
The function of Board is similar to that of a conciliation officer.
However there are some dissimilarities also. The procedure and
powers have been laid down in Section 13 of the Act.17 Section 2018
provides the date of commencement and conclusion of proceedings.
Section 20 also provides for the form of report of Board requiring
publication under Section 1719. Constitution-of the Board is tripartite
in its character and is presided over by the chairman with equal
number of representatives for employer and the workmen with the
usual provisions for filling up vacancies. The Board has the power to
compel production of document and to enforce attendance of
persons, to examine them on oath and to call witnesses. Board of
Conciliation is generally appointed on ad-hoc basis when the issues
involved are complex and needs immediate settlement. For
conducting the proceedings, it is not necessary that all members
may be present. If there is quorum, the work shall continue. In case
the services of the chairman or any member are not available and
the government notifies accordingly the work shall be suspended till
the new appointment is made.

Industrial Disputes Act Sec. 13.

Ibid Sec. 20.
Ibid. Sec. 17.
 /

135

B. Similarities and Dissimilarities in the Functions of

Conciliation Officers and Boards
There are certain similarities and dissimilarities in the
Constitution and functions of the conciliation officers and the boards,
(i) Similarities
(a) Power to Enter Premises
Both the conciliation officer and members of a board have the
power to enter the premises occupied by any establishment to which
the dispute relates after giving reasonable notice for the purpose of
inquiry into any existing or apprehended industrial dispute.20
(b) Public Servants
The conciliation officers as well as the members of the board
are to be deemed to be public servants within the meaning of s 21 of
the Indian Penal Code.21
(c) Settlement Report
In case of settlement arrived at during the conciliation
proceedings before the conciliation officers as well as the board,
both have to submit their reports to the appropriate government.22
(d) Failure Report
The conciliation officer as well as the board have to submit the
failure report to the appropriate government if no settlement is
arrived at.23

Section 11(2).
Section 11(6).
Sections 12(3) and 13(2) Industrial Disputes Act.
Sections 12(4) and 13(3) Ibid.
 /

136

(e) Duty to Promote Settlement

The conciliation officers as well as the boards are charged
with the same duties of promoting settlement of industrial disputes.24
(f) Powers under Section 33
The powers of the conciliation officers as well as of the board
to grant or withhold approval or permission under s 33 to the action
of the employer discharging or dismissing a workman during the
pendency of conciliation proceedings are similar.
(ii) Dissimilarities
(a) Powers regarding Documents and Witnesses
The board has powers:
(1) to enforce the attendance of any person and examining him
on oath;
(2) to compel the production of documents and material objects;
(3) to issue commissions for examination of witnesses; and
(4) in respect of other matters that may be prescribed, and every
inquiry or investigation by a board is judicial proceeding within
the meaning of Sections 193 and 228 of the Indian Penal
Code.25
A conciliation officer, however, has only the power to enforce
attendance of any person for the purpose of examination of such
person or to compel the production and inspection of documents.26

24
Sections 4 and 5. Ibid.
25
Section 11(3) and r 23 of the Central Rules of 1957.
 137

(b) Procedure
The board has to follow the procedure like the courts and
tribunals and subject to any rules that may be made in this behalf;
whereas the conciliation officers are not bound by any procedural
formalities, and the inquiry by a conciliation officer is of informal
nature.27
(c) Initiation of Conciliation Proceedings
A conciliation officer can initiate proceedings in case of the
public utility service only after a notice under s 22 has been given,
and in any other case, he may in his discretion, hold the conciliation
proceedings where an ‘industrial dispute’ is existing or is
apprehended.28 But the conciliation proceedings before a board can
commence only after a reference has been made to it under s 10(1)
of the Act by the ‘appropriate government’.29
(d) Statement in Failure Report
The conciliation officer in his ‘failure report’ has only to state
the facts and circumstances of the dispute along with the reasons on
account of which, in his opinion, the settlement could not he arrived
at30 whereas the board in its report has to state:
(1)the steps taken by it for ascertaining the facts and
circumstances relating to the dispute and for bringing about a
settlement thereof;

Section 11(4), ibid.

Section 11(1).
Section 12(1); KH Gandhi v. Sinha (RNP) (1958)1 LLJ 82 (Pat) (DB), per Sinha
J. (However, a conciliation officer has jurisdiction to start conciliation proceedings
only when an industrial dispute exists or is apprehended).
Section 13(1) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Section 12(4).
 138

(2) statement of facts and circumstances relating to the dispute

and for bringing about a settlement thereof;
(3) its findings on the facts and circumstances of the dispute;
(4) the reasons on account of which, in its opinion, the settlement
could not be arrived at; and
(5) its recommendations for the determination of the dispute.31
(e) Publication for Settlement or Failure Report
The settlement recorded or the failure report submitted by the
board under s 13(3) is required to be published under s 17; whereas
no such publication is required for the settlement recorded or the
failure report submitted by the conciliation officer under s 12(4) of the
Act.
(f) Period for Submission of Report
The period for submission of the conciliation officers’ report is
14 days from the date of commencement of the proceedings or any
other shorter period that may be fixed by the appropriate
government and this period may be extended by agreement of the
parties in writing32 whereas the period for submission of the report of
the board is two months from the date of reference of the dispute to
it or a shorter period that may be fixed by the appropriate
government and this period may be extended by agreement of all
the parties in writing; or by the government for further time not
exceeding two months in aggregate.33

31
Section 13(5).
32
Section 12(6).
33
Section 13(5).
 139

(g) Commencement and Conclusion of Conciliation

Proceedings
Before a conciliation officer, the conciliation proceedings
commence on the date on which a notice of strike or lockout under s
22 is received by him in case of a public utility concern and in any
other cases on the date indicated by him in formal notice under r 10
of the Central Rules or the corresponding state Rule, and conclude
on the date of signing of the memorandum of settlement by the
parties and in case of ‘no settlement’, on the date on which the
appropriate government receives the report of the conciliation officer
except in the case of a reference under s 10(1) of the Act being
made during the pendency of the conciliation proceedings in which
case the conciliation proceedings conclude on the date on which the
reference is made. Before the board, the proceedings commence
on the date the dispute is referred to it under s 10(1) (a) and
conclude on the date on which the report of the board is published
under s 17 of the Act.34
(h) Number of Members
A conciliation officer has to act singly for bringing about the
settlement of the industrial dispute between the parties while the
board consists of a chairman and two or four other members.
The details regarding the functioning of the board and the
procedure to be followed by the board have been discussed in detail
in the next chapters

34
Section 20.
 140

IV. Courts of Inquiry

Under Section 6. of the Industrial Disputes Act, which is
reproduced below, the appropriate government have to constitute
the courts of inquiry
Section 6 - (1) The appropriate Government may as occasion
arises by notification in the Official Gazette constitute a Court of
Inquiry for inquiring into any matter appearing to be connected with
or relevant to an industrial dispute.
(2) A court may consist of one independent person or of such
number of independent persons as the appropriate Government may
think fit and where a Court consists of two or more members, one of
them shall be appointed as the chairman.
(3) A court, having the prescribed quorum; may act
notwithstanding the absence of the chairman or any of its members
or any vacancy in its number:
Provided that, if the appropriate Government notifies the Court
that the services of the chairman have ceased to be available, this
Court shall not act until a new chairman has been appointed.
A. Legislation
Provisions for the Constitution of a court of inquiry is based on
a similar provision in the English Industrial Courts Act 1919.35 This
provision was enacted in the original Act of 1947. Rule 5 of the
Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules 1957 provides that the
appointment of a court of inquiry together with the names of persons
constitution the court shall be notified in the Official Gazette.

35
Section 4(1) of the industrial Courts Act 1919 (9 and 10 Geo 5, C 69).
 141

The inquiry is limited to the terms of reference made to the

courts of enquiry by the appropriate Govt. The procedure has been
prescribed under Rules 10, 11, 13 to 22 and 24 of the Central Rules.
Also for the duties of the Court of enquiry, sections 14 and 16 to 21
of the Act are relevant. A strike or lock-out is not prohibited during
the pendency of the proceedings before a court of enquiry. Also, the
ban under Section 33 is not imposed during the pendency of enquiry
proceedings. According to Section 6(2) The Court of inquiry may
consist of one or more independent persons as the government may
thinks fit and if a court consists of two or more members, one of
them should be appointed as a Chairman. If the Court has the
prescribed quorum, it may act notwithstanding the absence of the
chairman or any of its members or vacancy in its number. The
purpose of constitution of courts of inquiry is to inquire into any
matter appearing to be connected with or relevance to an industrial
dispute. The constitution of the court has be notified in the official
gazette. A court of inquiry is the investigating agency. Its report is
not binding on the parties but it may be helpful to create public
opinion so as to put pressure on the parties to come to the
settlement. The enquiry is to be limited only to the reference made
to the court of enquiry by the appropriate government.
V. Labour Court
According to Section 7 of the Industrial Dispute Act, the
appropriate government may, by notification in the official gazette
constitute one or more labour courts for the adjudication of industrial
disputes. Section 7 of the Industrial Disputes Act, is reproduced
below:-
 142

Section 7(1) - The appropriate Government, may by

notification in the Office Gazette, constitute one or more Labour
Courts for the adjudication of industrial disputes relating to any
matter specified in the Second Schedule and for performing such
other functions as may be assigned to them under this Act.
(2) A Labour Court shall consist of one person only to be
appointed by the appropriate Government.
(3) A person shall not be qualified for appointment as the
presiding officer of a Labour Court, unless -
(a) he is, or has been, a Judge of a High Court; or
(b) he has, for a period of not less than three years, been a
Distt. Judge or an Addl. Distt. Judge; or
(d) he has held any judicial office in India for not less than
seven years;
(e) he has teen the presiding officer of a Labour Court
constituted under any Provincial Act or State Act for not less
than five years.
A. Legislation
The Industrial Disputes Act of 1947, as originally enacted did
not contain provisions regarding the creation of labour courts. By
the Industrial Disputes (Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions)
Act of 1956, for the old s 7, the present ss 7, 7A, 7B, and 7C were
substituted. Apart from s 7, which defines a ‘labour court’, the
Second Schedule of the Act, was also inserted by the same
amending Act of 1956. Section 7 has been amended by the
Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act 1964 (Act 36 of 1964),
whereby clause (a) and (b) of the old sub-s (3) have been
 143

respectively relettered as ell (d) and (e) in the present sub-s(3) and
present ell (a), (b) and (c) of sub-s (3) have been inserted afresh. As
a result of this amendment, ell (a), (b) and (c) in sub-s (3) are now
the same as ell (a), (aa) and (b) of sub-s (3) of the amended s 7A.
By this amendment, the range of persons qualified to be appointed
as presiding officers has been enlarged.
As far as the qualifications of the presiding officer are
concerned, different states government have modified or enlarged
the qualifications for appointment by their own state amendments.
The Labour Courts are for adjudication of industrial disputes relating
to any matter specified in the second schedule of the Act and for
performing such other functions as may be assigned to them under
the Act. There was no provision for constitution of labour court in the
Act as enacted in 1947. This provision was made in the Industrial
Disputes (amendment Act) 1956. A Labour Court will consist of one
person only to be appointed by the appropriate government. The
Industrial Disputes (Amendment Act), 1956 provided that a person
would not be qualified for appointment as Presiding Officer of a
Labour Court, unless he had held any judicial office in India for not
less than seven years, or he had been the Presiding Officer of a
Labour Court constituted under any Provincial Act for not less than
five years. In 1964, the Act was amended to provide that a person
, would not be eligible for appointment as Presiding Officer of a
Labour Court unless he was or had been a Judge of High Court or
had been District Judge or Addl. District Judge for a period of not
less than three years or he had held the office of the Chairman or
any member of the Labour Appellate Tribunal constituted under the
 144

Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950or of any Tribunal

for a period of not less than two years. The Act was again amended
in 1982 when the reference to the holding of the office of Chairman
or any member of he Labour Appellate Tribunal or any other Tribunal
was omitted The constitution of Labour court together with the
names of the persons constituting the Labour court should be
notified in the official gazette by the State Governments. As of date,
a person cannot be appointed as Presiding Officer of a Labour Court
unless he is or has been a Judge of High Court, a District Judge or
Add I. District Judge for a specified period. Some of the States Govt,
have, however, modified or enlarged qualifications of appointment of
Presiding Officer of a Labour Court. Appointment of Presiding
Officer of a Labour Court can be challenged in a writ petition
challenging the award given by him in discharge of such functions.
Such challenge is direct and not collateral. Section 9(1) is worded
so widely and generally that it can cover every challenge to the
appointment to the particular post therein mentioned. But it is
impossible to construe the provision as in derogation of the remedies
provided by Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The rights
conferred by those Articles cannot be permitted to be taken away by
a broad and general provision in the nature of Section 9(1) of the
Act. The words “in any manner” which occur in Section 9(1) must,
therefore, be given a limited meaning so as to bar the jurisdiction of
civil courts in the ordinary exercise of their powers, to entertain a
challenge to appointment mentioned in the sub-section. The rights
conferred by Articles 226 and 227 can be abridged or taken away
only by an appropriate amendment of the Constitution and their
 145

operation can not be whittled down by a provision like the one

contained in Section 9(1) of the Act. If the proper mode to challenge
the validity of an appointment to a public office is by a petition for the
writ of quo warrant, the Labour Court is hardly an appropriate forum
for challenging the appointment of its Presiding Officer. It is open to
the high Court in the exercise of their writ jurisdiction to consider the
validity of appointment of any person as a Chairman or member of a
Board or Court or as Presiding Officer of a Labour Court, Tribunal or
National Tribunal. If the High Court finds that a person appointed to
any of these offices is not eligible or qualified to hold that post, the
appointment has to be declared invalid by issuing a writ of quo-
warmato or any other appropriate writ or direction. To strike down
usurpation of office is the function and duty of High Courts in the
exercise of their constitutional powers under Articles 226 and 22736.
As far as the status of a Labour Court is concerned, the Supreme
Court in 1995(2) G.L.H. 550 has held that Labour Court is not a
Court subordinate to the High Court in the matter of Contempt of
Courts Act. In view of this the contempt applications are not
maintainable in law.37
B. Function of Labour Court
A Labour Court may adjudicate on the following matters
(i) adjudication of industrial disputes relating to any matter
specified in the Second Schedule;

36
The State of Haryana Vs. Haryana Co. Op. Transport Ltd. 1977(1) SCC 271.
37
Gujarat Mineral Development Cooperation Employees Union Vs. Ramrakhiyani
P.G., 1997 (3) LLJ (Suppl) 489 (Guj. HC).
 146

(i) Adjudication of Industrial Disputes

The Second Schedule specifically refers to s 7, which provides
for the Constitution of labour courts for the adjudication of industrial
disputes relating to matters in that schedule and for performing such
other functions as may be assigned to them38 but the first proviso to
s 10(1) lays down that where the disputes relates to a matter
specified in the Third Schedule, if it is not likely to effect more than
100 workmen, it can be referred to a labour court. Thus, disputes
arising under Second Schedule can alone be adjudicated by a
labour court unless the case falls under the first proviso to s 10(1) of
the Act in which case the dispute under the Third Schedule can also
be adjudicated upon by the labour court.39 Therefore, if on the facts
of a case, it appears that the dispute relating to a matter covered in
the Third Schedule is likely to affect more than 100 workmen, the
reference to the labour court would be invalid.40
Item 6 of the Second Schedule is the residuary item under
which, except the matters specified in the Third Schedule in respect
of which, the industrial tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction, not only the
labour court, but even the industrial tribunal will have jurisdiction to
adjudicate.41 The jurisdiction of the labour court to adjudicate upon
matters enumerated in the Second Schedule, or matters in the Third
Schedule in cases falling under the first proviso to s 10(1), or upon
all matters other than those specified in the Third Schedule, springs
from the reference made to it by the ‘appropriate government’ under

South Indian Bank Ltd. v. AR Chacko (1964)1 LLJ 19, 21 (SC), per Das Gupta J.
Sindhu Resettlement Corpn. Ltd. v. Industrial Tribunal (1965)2 LLJ 268, 273
(Guj) (DB), per Shelat CJ.
Management of Gauhati Trasport Assn v. Labour Court 1969 Lab IC 1568, 1573-
74 (Assam & Nag), per Goswami J.
Sindhu Resettlement Corpn Ltd. v. Industrial Tribunal (1965)2 LLJ 268, 273 (Guj)
(DB), per Shelat CJ.
 147

s 10 of the Act.42 Once a labour court is constituted to deal with

‘industrial disputes’, the ‘appropriate government’ has to refer to it
such disputes as fall within its jurisdiction. However, if there are
more than one labour courts so authorised in any area, there would
obviously be a choice of forum, unless there were certain rules
under which such choice is limited.43
The functions of a labour court are of great public importance
and are quasi-judicial in nature. The principles of adjudication of the
disputes referred to the labour courts constituted under s 7, industrial
tribunals constituted under s 7A and national tribunals constituted
under s 7B are the same.
The jurisdiction of the labour court stems from the order of
reference and is sustained until it makes an award and the same
becomes enforceable. Once the labour court is seized of jurisdiction
by virtue of the order of reference made to it, it cannot be taken
away by subsequent acts on the part of the parties.44 Nor can the
jurisdiction of the labour court be taken away by the government by
canceling, withdrawing or superseding the reference once made to
it.45 A labour court, constituted under s 7, cannot be abolished by the
‘appropriate government’, till it has made the awards in the
references made to it, in the absence of a specific provision in the
Act.
Section 21 of the General Clauses Act cannot be pressed into
service. Hence, a notification canceling a labour court constituted

42 Working Journalists of Hindu’ v 'Hindu' (1961)1 LLJ 288 (Mad), per Veeraswami
J.
43 Chipping & Painting Employees’ Assn v. AT Zambre (1968)2 LLJ 193, 198 (Bom)
(DB), per Nain J.
44 Working Journalists of ‘Hindu’ v. ‘Hindu’ (1961)1 LLJ 288 (Mad), per Veeraswami
J; Management of Gauhati Transport Assn v. Labour Court 1969 Lab IC 1568,
1573-74 (DB) (Assam & Nag), per Goswami J.
45 State ofBiharsi. DN Ganguli(1958)2 LLJ 634 (SC), per Gajendragadkar J.
 148

under s 7 and constituting a fresh labour court will operate from the
date of that notification (and will not affect references made earlier)
and the references made from the dates of the new notification will
only be taken cognizance of by the new labour court.46 It is not
permissible for the labour court to entertain more disputes than are
contemplated in the reference nor is it permissible for it to decline to
adjudicate matters which clearly arise in the terms of the reference.47
(ii) performing of such other functions as may be assigned to
them under this Act. The word ‘Assign’ means conferment of
powers under the Act on one or more labour courts the case may be
the following matters are specified in the Second Schedule, namely;
(i) The propriety or legality or any order passed by an
employer under the Standing Orders;
(ii) The application and interpretation of Standing Orders;
(iii) Discharge or dismissal of workmen, including
reinstatement of, or grant of, or relief to, workmen
wrongfully dismissed;
(iv) Withdrawal of any customary concession or privilege^
(v) Illegality or otherwise of a strike or lock-out;
(vi) All matters other than those specified in the Third
Schedule.

East India Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. GS Verma 1973 Lab IC 1501, 1508-09
(Pat) (DB), per SNP Singh J; Sindri Cement Factory Workers’ Union v. Labour
Court, Chhotanagpur (1977) 1 LLJ 230, 232 (Pat) (DB), per RP Sinha J.
Management of Gauhati Trasport Assn v. Labour Court 1969 Lab IC 1568, 1573-
74 (DB) (Assam & Nag), per Goswami J; Kashmir Ceramics Ltd v. Labour Court
1980 Lab IC 192 (J & K), per Kotwal J.
 149

(ii) Performing such other Functions as may be assigned under

this Act

The word ‘assign’ means conferment of powers under the Act

on one or more labour courts, as the case may be 48 The other
matters assignable to labour courts are:
(1) voluntary reference of industrial disputes by a written
agreement between the parties under s 10(2);
(2) arbitration reference under s 10A;
(3) application for ‘permission’ or ‘approval’ under s 33;
(4) application under s 33C(2) for computation of ‘any money
benefit’, which is capable of being computed in terms of
money;49
C. Jurisdiction of a Labour Court
Jurisdiction under this Section can be invoked only in the
matter provided .in the Act. The Labour Court is a quasi-Judicious
body. It takes cognizance of industrial disputes only on a reference
by the appropriate government in the manner prescribed by or under
the law. Direct approach to the labour court by disputants is not
possible. However, some states like Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh,
Tamil Nadu and recently Delhi have amended Section 2A whereby
the workmen can directly approach the Labour Court challenging

Coromandal Fertilisers Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1988)2 LLJ 390, 391
(AP), per K Ramaswami J; Hyderabad Engineering Industries v. State of Andhra
Pradesh WP No. 1555 of 1978 decided on 28 July 1987, per PA Chowdhary J.
South Indian Bank Ltd v. AR Chacko (1964)1 LLJ 19, 21 (SC), per Das Gupta J.
Section 33(C) in terms assigns the determination of the amount of benefit which
a workman is entitled to receive from the employer,and which is capable of being
computed in terms of money to such labour courts as may be specified in this
sub-section by the appropriate government. It is therefore, only a labour court so
specified and not an Industrial. Tribunal which can have jurisdiction under s
33C(2)ofthe Act.
 150

their dismissal or discharge etc. from the services. It is a healthy

trend which has been made by the particular states. A notification
canceling a labour court constituted under Section 7 and constituting
a fresh labour court will operate from the date of that notification
(and will not effect reference made earlier) and the references made
and case filed on or from the date of the new notification, will only be
taken cognizance of by the labour court or courts as constituted
under the fresh notification. Unlike High Court, the Labour Court can
create new rights of the parties.50 Labour Court is also empowered
to appoint amicus curiae to assist it. When a reference for
adjudication of an industrial dispute is made by the Govt., the Labour
Court has to make determination on its merits since it can neither be
rescinded nor cancelled, more so when the concerned workman was
not agreeing to compromise.51 While adjudicating an industrial
i dispute, the Labour Court has to confine its powers to the terms of
reference and in case any party wants modification, amendment or
alteration, it has to approach the appropriate government.
Adjudication proceedings with regard to reference of a dispute will
be deemed to continue till date when the award becomes
enforceable. An award of a Labour Court, appointed in
contravention of the statutory provisions, can be challenged in a writ
petition52. The qualification for the appointment of Presiding Officer

Chachkola Spinning & Weaving Mills Vs. Chackola T.M.T. Union 2002 LLR 425
(Ker HC).
Guman Singh, Workman, C/o Faridabad Kamgar Union Vs. Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Faridabad, 2003 LLR 887 (P&H HC).
Haryana Co-Operative Transport Ltd. Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1969 (P&H) 66.

/
 151

of a Labour Court are given in Section. Section 7(c) prescribes some

disqualification for appointment.
D. Disqualification for the Presiding officers of Labour Court
No person shall be appointed to or continue in, the office of the
Presiding officer of a Labour Court; Tribunal or National Tribunal if
(a) He is not an Independent person; or
(b) Has attained the age of sixty-five years.
In the Statesman (P) Ltd. v. H.R. Deb53 the question was whether a
magistrate holds a judicial office. The fact that the duties of a
magistrate are partly judicial and partly other do not detract from the
position that while acting as a magistrate he is a judicial officer. The
phrase “holding a judicial office” postulates that there is an office and
that office is primarily judicial. But where Registrar to Pensions
Appeal Tribunal was appointed as presiding officer of a Labour
Court it was held that the appointment was void ab initio because
the office of the Registrar is administrative and not judicial in
nature.54
VI. Tribunal
Section 7(A) of the Industrial Disputes of which is reproduced
below gives power to the appropriate government to constitute one
or more industrial tribunal for the purpose of adjudication of industrial
disputes relating to any matter specified either in Second Schedule
or Third Schedule
Section 7A (1) - The appropriate Government may, by
notification in the Official Gazette, constitute one or more Industrial

53
AIR 1968 SC 1495.
54
Haryana Co. Op. Transport Ltd. Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1969 Punjab 66.
 152

Tribunals for the adjudication of industrial disputes relating to any

matter, whether specified in the second Schedule or the Third
Schedule;
(2) A Tribunal shall consist of one person only to be appointed by
the appropriate Government.
(3) A person shall not be qualified for appointment as the presiding
officer of a Tribunal unless-
(a) he is, or has been a Judge of a High Court; or
(aa) he has, for a period of not less than three years, been a Distt.
Judge or an Addl. Distt. Judge.
(4) The appropriate Government may, if it so thinks fit, appoint two
persons as assessors to advise the Tribunal in the presceeding
before it.
A. Legislation
There was no provision of any adjudicatory machinery in the
repealed Trade Disputes Act 1929. Tribunals were created for the
first time by s 7 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947, for the purpose
of ‘adjudicating’ upon ‘industrial disputes’, referred to them by the
‘appropriate government’, thus introducing ‘compulsory adjudication’
where voluntary negotiations or mediation through the machinery of
conciliation authorities fail. But after the experience of a decade, the
employers and workmen have been given the option to refer
industrial disputes to voluntary arbitration by mutual agreement in
writing under s 10A of the Act.55 By the Industrial Disputes
(Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1956, original s 7

55
Section 10A was inserted by s 8 of the Industrial Disputes (Amendment and
Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1959, which came into force with effect from 10
March 1957.
 153

was replaced by the present ss 7, 7A, 7B and 7C. Section 7A

empowers the appropriate government to constitute industrial
tribunals. This section has been further amended by s 4 of the
Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act 1964, by the insertion of cl
(aa). Consequently, now, even a person who has been a ‘district
judge’ or ‘additional district judge’, for a period not less than three
years, can be appointed as presiding officer of an industrial tribunal.
The notification in the official gazette is the essential
requirement for the constitution of the industrial tribunal. It has been
held that the essential pre-requisite condition for the constitution of a
Tribunal is the publication of the notification in the official gazette.
Section 7(A) does not require that the appointment of Presiding
Officer of the Tribunal should also be made by a notification to be
published in the gazette. Further, as the officer is appointed to
preside over an existing Tribunal, the delay in the publication of the
notification in the official gazette becomes inconsequential. A
Tribunal is something different from the officer who presides over it.
It is within the competence of the appropriate government to
constitute a Tribunal in the first instance and then to appoint the
Presiding Officer. The Tribunal will consist of one person to be
appointed by the appropriate government. The appropriate
government may if it so think fit may appoint two persons as
assessors to advise the Tribunal in the proceeding before it.
According to 7A, a person shall not be qualified for appointment as a
Presiding Officer of a Tribunal unless
(a) he is or has been a Judge of High Court; or
 154

(aa) he has for a period of not less than three years, been a Distt.
Judge or Addl. District Judge. Some of the States Govt, have
enlarged or modified the qualification for appointment of the
Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal. The Labour Law Review
Committee of Gujarat pointed out that under the Bombay Industrial
relations Act, a Presiding Officer of a Labour Court who had
rendered certain number of service in that office could be appointed
as Presiding Officer of a Tribunal and suggested a similar provisions
could be made in the Industrial Disputes Act also; that a person wh
had been Presiding Officer of a Labour Court or a Special Labour
Court, could be appointed as Presiding Officer of an Industrial
Tribunal. If he had rendered five years of continuous service in that
capacity.56
B. Powers of the Industrial Tribunal
The industrial tribunal is a Judicial body or at any rate quasi­
judicial body. In the matter of adjudication of industrial disputes, the
Industrial Tribunal has the jurisdiction to grant interest. In E.I.D.
Parry (India) Ltd., Madras Vs. Industrial Tribunal. Madras,57 Madras
High Court has observed that Industrial Tribunal is a “Court” within
the meaning of Interest Act, 1839. The Division Bench of the Kerala
High Court has observed that unlike High Court, the Industrial
Tribunal is not bound by the principle, ‘where there is a right, there is
a remedy’, but it can create new rights where none exists, having
regard to the justness of the demands of the workmen. The
question whether an objection to jurisdiction of a tribunal could be

56
Report of the Labour Law Review Committee of Gujarat Para 9, (1975).
57
1991 (1) LLJ 250 (Mad HC) (DB).
 155

raised before the tribunal itself or it is necessary to apply to the High

Court to quash the proceedings before the tribunal has been
considered on a number of occasion by the Courts. There can be
no difficulty where the question of jurisdiction is clear from the
admitted facts. The difficulty of jurisdiction actually arises where the
question of jurisdiction is a mixed question of law and fact. In such
cases the question should be raised before the Tribunal itself which
shall determine the question after going into the facts. The
proceedings before the Tribunal comes to an end if it finds that it has
no jurisdiction. If in its opinion the Tribunal thinks that it has
jurisdiction it may proceed further to decide the industrial dispute
itself. Where a preliminary finding is given by the Tribunal or a
question of jurisdiction alongwith the dispute is decided by the
tribunal the High Court in appropriate proceedings may decide
whether the Tribunal has acted with or without jurisdiction.
Ordinarily the finding of fact with regard to the jurisdiction will not be
interfered with by the High Court or the Supreme Court. The finding
of the Tribunal may be set aside by these Courts, if it is found that
the Tribunal while interpreting the facts has misapplied any principle
of law.
C. Nature of Tribunal’s Function
The functions and duties of an industrial tribunal are very
much like those of bodies discharging judicial functions, although it
is not a court. Its powers in some respects are different and far
wider from those of an ordinary civil court. It has jurisdiction and
power to give reliefs which a civil court, administering the law of the
land, does not possess in the discharge of its duties; for instance,
 156

ordering as a judicial body the reinstatement of a discharged or

dismissed workman.58Though, industrial tribunals are not courts, in
the strict sense of the term, they have to discharge quasi judicial
functions. There powers are derived from the statute that created
them and they have to function within the limits imposed by it and to
act according to its provisions.59 Being judicial or quasi-judicial
bodies, these tribunals are bound to serve notices upon the parties
to a reference. The service of such notices is essential and any
award made without serving of such notices will be fundamentally
wrong.60
The nature of the functions of the industrial tribunals was
considered by the Supreme Court in Bharat Bank Ltd v. Employees
of Bharat Bank Lfcf.61 All the four judges who delivered their
opinions touched upon the subject. After consideration of the
provisions of the Act, Kania CJ said that it seems that, ‘the tribunal is
discharging functions very near to those of a court, although it is not
a court in the technical sense of the word’.62
Fazal Ali J precisely pointed out that ‘there can be no doubt
that the industrial tribunal has, to use a well-known expression, “all
the trappings of a court” and performs functions which cannot but be
regarded as judicial. This is evident from the rules by which the

Bharat Bank Ltd v. Employees of Bharat bank Ltd. (1950) LLJ 921 (SC), per
Mukherjea J.
JK Iron & Steel Co Ltd v. Iron & Steel Mazdoor Union (1956) 1 LLJ 227 (SC), per
Bose J; Bharat Bank Ltd. v. Employees of Bharat Bank Ltd. (1950) 1 LLJ 921
(SC), per Mukherjea J; Delite Cinema v. Rameshwar Dyal AIR 1959 Punj 189,
per Bishan Narain J.
Indian Mining Assn v. Koyla Mazdoor Panchayat 4 FJR 239 (LAT).
(1950) LLJ 921 (SC), per Mukherjea J.
Ibid, per Kania CJ.
 157

proceedings before the tribunal are regulated’.63 Mahajan J

elaborated:
The adjudication, of the dispute has to be in accordance with
evidence legally adduced and the parties have a right to be heard
and being represented by a legal practitioner... the industrial tribunal
has all the necessary attributes of a court of justice. It has no other
function except that of adjudicating on a dispute. It is no doubt true
that by reason of the nature of the dispute that they have to
adjudicate, the law gives them wider powers than are possessed by
ordinary courts of law, but powers of such a nature do not affect the
question that they are exercising judicial power... that circumstance
does not make them anything else but tribunals exercising judicial
power of the state, though in a degree different from the ordinary
courts and to an extent which is also different from the enjoyed by
an ordinary court of law.64
On the basis of the holding in Bharat Bank’s case, a Full
Bench of the Gujarat High Court has held that the labour courts,
industrial tribunals and national tribunals fall within the meaning of
the word ‘court’ in s 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act.65
The Industrial Tribunals are very important for many reasons;
firstly, only experienced persons of High Court High integrity can be
appointed as Presiding Officer of the Tribunal; secondly, almost all
important matter can be submitted for adjudication to the tribunal
including question relating the wages, bonus, PF, gratuity, dismissal

Ibid, pp 922-23, per Fazal Ali J.

Ibid, p 932, per Mahajan J.
Shaikh Mohammedbhikhan Hussainbhai v. Manager, Chandrabhanu Cinema
1986 Lab IC 1749 (Guj) (FB).
 158

etc.; thirdly, the tribunals enjoy unlimited powers so long as they Act
within the scope of their authority.
VII. National Tribunal
According to section 7-B which is reproduced below, National
Industrial Tribunals may also be constituted by the Center
Government.
Section 7B (1) - The Central Government may, by notification
in the Official Gazette, constitute one or more National Industrial
Tribunals for the adjudication of industrial dispute which, in the
opinion of the Central Govt., involve question of national importance
or are of such a nature that industrial establishments situated in
more than one State are likely to be interested in, or affected by
such disputes.
(2) A National Tribunal shall consist of one person only to be
appointed by the Central Govt.
(3) A person shall not be qualified for appointment as the presiding
officer of a National Tribunal unless he is or has been a judge of a
High Court.
(4) The Central Govt, may, if so thinks fit, appoint two persons as
assessors to advise the National Tribunal in the proceeding before it.
The Central Govt, is invested for the powers to constitute
National Tribunal for adjudication of industrial disputes which in the
information of Central Govt., involves question of national
importance or are of such a nature that industrial establishment
situated in more than one State are likely to be interested in, or
affected by such disputes. Where a reference is made under sub­
section (1A) of Section 10 to a National Tribunal, the jurisdiction of
 159

the Labour Court or Tribunal is barred in respect of matters covered

by the reference, and if any such dispute as is the subject matter of
the reference to the National Tribunal, is pending before any Labour
Court or Tribunal the proceedings of the Labour Court or tribunal
shall be deemed to have been quashed. This section does not cast
any obligation, not being in mandatory form, directing the Central
Govt, to refer a dispute which spreads over different States
compulsorily to a National Tribunal. A person shall not be qualified
for appointment as the Presiding Officer of a National Tribunal,
unless he is, or has been a Judge of a High Court. A National
Tribunal shall appoint one person only to be appointed by the
Central Govt. The Central Govt, may also appoint two persons as
assessors to advise the National Tribunal if it so thinks fit.
The conciliation officer and Boards of Conciliation have very
import role to play to settle the Industrial dispute peacefully. If they
fail to settle the dispute, the appropriate Govt, may refer the dispute
to Labour court, Industrial Tribunal or National Tribunal for
Adjudication.
Where an industrial dispute has been referred to Labour
Court, Industrial Tribunal or National tribunal for adjudication, it shall
hold its proceedings expeditiously and shall as soon as it is
practicable on the conclusion thereof submit its award to the
appropriate Government. The award shall be in writing and shall be
signed by its presiding officer. Every award (as also every report of
a board or Court) shall, within a period of 30 days from the date of its
receipt by the appropriate Government, be published in such a
manner as the appropriate Government thinks fit. An award shall
 160

become enforceable on the expiry of 30 days from the date of its

publication.
The Government can refer disputes to a board, court or
tribunal either on its own accord or on application by the parties. In
case no reference is made, the appropriate Government has to
record and communicate to the parties reasons for not referring the
disputes for adjudication. But it is obligatory on the Government to
refer a dispute to a board, court or tribunal or National Tribunal, if the
parties to the dispute jointly or separately apply in the prescribed
manner and the Government is satisfied that persons applying
represent the majority of each party. The appropriate Government
can even make a reference in case of establishments where there is
no actual dispute but in respect of which it feels that a certain
reference made in other establishments is likely to affect them also.
Actual or apprehended disputes can be referred for adjudication by
the Government. All awards remain in operation for a period of one
year in the first instance but the appropriate Government has the
power to extend the period of operation by any period not exceeding
one year at a time. The total period of operation of an award is not to
exceed three years. The awards continue to be in operation even
after the expiry of the prescribed period unless two months’ notice of
termination is given by either of the parties to the opposite party.
The appropriate Government can also refer for adjudication the
issue for reducing the period of operation if there is a material
change in the circumstances. The Government can take the course
either of its own or on the application of any party bound by the
award. The appropriate Government, if it is a party to an award, or
 161

the Central Government if it is of opinion, in the case of an award

given by the National Tribunal that it will be inexpedient on public
grounds to give effect to the whole or any part of it; can declare that
the award shall not become enforceable on the expiry of 30 days
from the date of its publication. The appropriate Government or
Central Government have also the power to make an order rejecting
or modifying the award within 90 days from the date of its
publication. If the Government does not reject or modify the award
within 90 days of its publication, it becomes operative on the expiry
of the said 30 days from the date of its publication. The other
aspects regarding reference of disputes for Arbitration, conciliation
or adjudication by the appropriate Governments have been
discussed in next chapters. The various authorities under the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have to play important roles in the
settlement and the adjudication of Industrial Disputes. Every
authority under the Act follows its own procedure or the procedure
given in the Act. However, the conciliators and Board of conciliation
have definite roles in the settlement of Industrial Disputes. The
performance of the Machinery depends on various factors which are
to be critically analysed.