RAJIV GANDHI NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF LAW, PATIALA

RAJIV GANDHI NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF LAW

PATIALA, PUNJAB

Topic: Industrial Tribunals in India

Sub topic: Jurisdiction of an Industrial Tribunal under ID Act, 1947 and Industrial
Relations Code, 2020.

SUBMITTED TO- SUBMITTED BY-

Dr. Shiva Satish Sharda Anany Raj Singh (19081)

LABOUR LAW 1|PAGE

 RAJIV GANDHI NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF LAW, PATIALA

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

I would like to take this opportunity to express my profound gratitude and regard to Dr. Shiva Satish
Sharda for her guidance and valuable feedback and constant support throughout the duration of the
project. Her suggestions were of monumental help in the rough work of my project.

I would also like to express my gratitude to Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Patiala for
giving me the topic that enriched my knowledge. I also like to thank the library staff for constant
support.

Lastly, I am thankful to my parents and friends for their constant support and coordination in the
completion of the research work.

LABOUR LAW 2|PAGE

 RAJIV GANDHI NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF LAW, PATIALA

Table of Contents

1) Introduction.................................................................................3

2) Industrial Tribunal......................................................................4

3) Constitution of the Industrial Tribunal.......................................4

4) Qualification of Preceding officer..............................................4

6. The Industrial Relations Code, 2020...........................................6

7. Case Laws...................................................................................7

8. Way Forward-...........................................................................10

9. References-................................................................................11

LABOUR LAW 3|PAGE

 RAJIV GANDHI NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF LAW, PATIALA

1) INTRODUCTION
 The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has provided some authorities for the prevention and settlement
of Industrial Disputes such as The Works Committee, Conciliation Officer, Board of
Conciliation, Court of Inquiry,  Labour Court, Industrial Tribunal and National Tribunal.
There was no provision of any adjudicatory machinery in the repealed Trade Dispute Act, 1929.
Tribunals were created for the first time by Section 7 of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 for the
purpose of adjudicating upon the industrial matters referred to them by the appropriate government,
thus introducing the concept of compulsory adjudication, where voluntary negotiation or meditation
through the machinery of conciliation authorities have failed. But the original Section 7 was
replaced by the present section 7(A), 7(B) and 7(C) by the Industrial Disputes (Amendment and
Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1956.

2) INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL 

According to Section 7(A) of the Act, by 1956 Amendment Act, the appropriate Government by

notification in the Official Gazette may constitute one or more Industrial Tribunals for the
adjudication of industrial disputes relating to any matter specified in the Second Schedule or the
Third Schedule and for performing such other functions as assigned. A Tribunal once appointed
cannot be abolished by an executive act.
The government which constituted the tribunal is entitled to make a reference to a Tribunal for
clarification of a prior award and there is no bar or On The Tribunal to make a supplementary award

3) CONSTITUTION OF THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL 

A Tribunal shall consist of one person only to be appointed by the appropriate Government. It may
be constituted for a limited time or for any particular Case. It is headed by one person known as

LABOUR LAW 4|PAGE

 RAJIV GANDHI NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF LAW, PATIALA

Presiding Officer.

4) QUALIFICATION OF PRECEDING OFFICER 

 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;

(b) He has, for a period of not less than three-years, been a District Judge or an Additional District
Judge;
(c) He is or has been a Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) or Joint Commissioner of the
State Labour Department, having a degree in law and at least seven years' experience in the labor
department including three years of experience as Conciliation Officer
(c) He is an officer of Indian Legal Service in Grade III with three years' experience in the
grade.
 (d) The presiding officer shall be an independent person. 
 (e) He must not have attained the age of 65 years.

5) JURISDICTIONS OF THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

 The Industrial Tribunal are assigned the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon industrial disputes
specified in the second and third schedule of the Act or any matter appearing to be connected with
or relevant to such disputes, referred to it under Section 10(1)(d) of the Act. It is immaterial whether
any such matter appearing to be connected with or relevant to the basic dispute relates to any matter
specified in Second and third schedule or not. The first proviso to Section 10 Lays down that way in
the dispute relates to matter specified in the third schedule and it is not likely to affect more than a
hundred workmen, the appropriate government has the discretion to make a reference to the Labor
Court.

LABOUR LAW 5|PAGE

 RAJIV GANDHI NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF LAW, PATIALA

 The following matters are specified in the third schedule of the Act-

(1) Wages including the period and mode of payment;

(2) Hours of work and rest intervals;
(3) Leave with wages and holidays
(4) Compensatory and other allowances
(5) Bonus, profit sharing, provident fund and gratuity.
(6) Shift working otherwise than in accordance with standing orders
(7) Classification by grades
(8) Rates of discipline
(9) Rationalization
(10) Retrenchment of workmen and closure of establishment
(11) Any other matter that may be prescribed.

 Thus, whereas questions arising under the second schedule can be adjudicated both by
Industrial Court and tribunal, questions arising from matters included in the third schedule can be
referred for adjudication to a Tribunal alone unless the case falls under the provision to Section 10
(1) (d). Lays down that the appropriate government may refer the dispute or any matter appearing to
be connected with or relevant to, the dispute, whether it relates to any matter specified in the Section
or third schedule to a Tribunal for adjudication.

6. THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS CODE, 2020

The Code does away with Labour Courts and provides for adjudication of industrial disputes only
by Industrial Tribunals. Section 44 of the Code provides for the appointment of both a Judicial
Member and an Administrative Member to each Tribunal. The qualifications for appointment and
the method of recruitment of the Members have not been spelt out in the Code. The proviso to sub-
section (4) of section 44 however indicates that only a person holding the post of Joint Secretary or
an equivalent rank in the central government or state government may be appointed as an

LABOUR LAW 6|PAGE

 RAJIV GANDHI NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF LAW, PATIALA

Administrative Member. The Code also does not specify that only a person having prior experience
of dealing with labour matters may be appointed as an Administrative Member of the Tribunal.

Sub-section (7) of section 44 provides that the Bench consisting of the Judicial Member and the
Administrative Member may hear and decide cases regarding the interpretation and application of
Standing Orders, discharge or dismissal of workers, retrenchment of workers, closure of an
industrial establishment, legality of strikes and lockouts and inter and intra trade union disputes.
Other cases may be heard either by a Judicial Member or an Administrative Member.

If it is left only to an inexperienced Administrative Member to decide cases by himself or herself, it

will seriously impair the quality of the justice delivery system in labour related cases.

Transfer of Pending cases

As per section 51 of the Code, cases pending before the existing Labour Courts and Industrial
Tribunals are to be transferred to the Tribunals to be constituted under the Code and either be
heard de novo or from the stage at which they were pending prior to the transfer.

7. CASE LAWS
 Nirmala Textile Finishing Mills Ltd. v. Industrial Tribunal, Punjab

The disputes between the appellants and their workmen were referred to the Industrial Tribunal for
adjudication by the appropriate government, under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947. It was contended for the appellants that the reference to the Tribunal was bad because (1) the
Act was ultra vires the Constitution inasmuch as its provisions are violative of the fundamental
rights enshrined in Art. 14 and Art. 19 (1)(f) and (g) of the Constitution, (2) the Industrial
Tribunals are legislating in the guise of adjudication,, and this amounts to delegation of the powers
of legislation which it was not competent to the Central Legislature to do so, and (3) the definition
of the term "industry'. comprises industrial as well as non-industrial concerns and, therefore, the Act
was not within the legislative competence of the Central Legislature under Entry 29 of List III of
the Seventh- Schedule to the Government of India Act, 1935.

LABOUR LAW 7|PAGE

 RAJIV GANDHI NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF LAW, PATIALA

Held: (1) The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is not unconstitutional and the provisions of the
Act do not contravene Art. 14 and 19 (1)(f) and (g) of the Constitution. The basic idea underlying all
the provisions of the Act is the settlement of industrial disputes and the promotion of industrial
peace so that production may not be interrupted and the community in general may be benefited,
and the appropriate Government has, therefore, a discretion in the matter of making the reference
to one or other of the Authorities under the Act and also in the matter of carrying out the, various
provisions of the Act, including the curtailment or extension of the period 'of preparation of the
award of the Tribunal, having regard to the exigencies of the situation and the objects to be
achieved.

(2) Industrial Tribunals while settling particular industrial disputes referred to them, lay
down certain general principles to be observed in regard to the determination of bonus,
reinstatement of dismissed or discharged employee, and other allied topics mainly with the
object of promoting industrial peace, but these principles or rules of conduct, though they are
applied as precedents by the Industrial Tribunals while adjudicating upon other similar industrial
disputes referred to them, are not rules of law and do not amount to legislation.

(3) The Act is not ultra vires the legislature, as the matters included within the definition ofthe term
"industry" are within the legislative competence of the Central Legislature under Entries 27 and 29
of List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Government of India Act, 1935.

 HD Singh v Reserve Bank of India, 1985

The appellant was a tikka mazdoor-person who helps the Examiners of Coins and notes in the
Reserve Bank of India, the 1st Respondent. He was selected in 1974 on daily wages basis and he
had to report to the bank regularly in the morning to ascertain whether he could get work every-day.
On days when no work was given he had to wait till noon to be told by the authorities concerned
that no work was available. Thus, he had work only for four days in 1974, and one hundred and fifty
four days in 1975, and one hundred and five days in 1976. At the time he was selected for
employment, he was not a matriculate. He passed the matriculate examination in 1975. His name

LABOUR LAW 8|PAGE

 RAJIV GANDHI NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF LAW, PATIALA

was struck off the list of Tikka Mazdoors as the confidential circular issued by the bank indicated
that persons who passed the matriculation examination could not be retained in the list.
As the appellant was not given any work after July 1976 and as there were no written order
terminating his service and as attempts to get his grievances redressed by correspondence having
failed he moved for conciliation. The Assistant Labour Commissioner though impressed with the
genuineness of the claim of the appellant, could not persuade the bank. Thereupon, the Central
Government referred the dispute for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal.
The appellant in his claim statement before the Tribunal, pleaded that he had presented himself
for duty daily but was not offered jobs on the days when he reported for duty for reasons best
known tothe bank, that he was employed for 4 days in 1974, 154 days in 1975 and 105 days in
1976, that he was not told at the time when he accepted the job that his name would be struck off
from the rolls if he passed the matriculate examination and that he had worked continuously for
days if the Sundays and Holidays were taken into account, and that the action of the bank in striking
out his name from the list amounted to retrenchment.
The claim of the appellant was resisted by the Bank contending that the reference was had since
the dispute was not sponsoredby any representative trade union, that Section 2-A of the Industrial
Disputes Act 1947 was not attracted, and also that the dispute in question was not an industrial
dispute, that the appellant failed to inform the bank that he had passed the matriculation examination
after getting selected and that he had not worked for 240 days in any year.
The Tribunal held that the action of the Reserve Bank, in not giving regular appointment to the
appellant was legal and proper and that his name could be struck off from the list of approved
Tikka Mazdoors in terms of a proper and justifiable policy followed by the management of the
Bank;

HELD: 1. Striking off the name of the appellant is clearly termination of his service and the
dispute squarely comes within Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Tribunal
grossly erred in upholding the preliminary objection raised by the Bank.
2. Striking off the name of a workman from the rolls by the employer amounts to 'termination of
service' and such termination is 'retrenchment' within the meaning of Sec. 2(oo) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 if effected in violation of the mandatory provision contained in Sec. 25-F and in
invalid.

LABOUR LAW 9|PAGE

 RAJIV GANDHI NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF LAW, PATIALA

In the instant case, the pleadings, documents and the confidential circular indicate that the Bank
was determined to adopt methods to terminate the services of employees like the appellant. The
appellant was not told that he would be struck off the rolls if he passed matriculation. He was not
given any order in writing either refusing work or informing him that his name would be struck off
the rolls. The appellant's name had been struck off the list contrary to the mandate contained in
Section 25F.
3. The 5th Schedule to the Industrial Disputes Act contains a list of unfair labour practices as
defined in sec. 2(ra), and to employ workmen as 'badlis casual or temporaries and to continue them
as such for years, with the object of depriving them of the statue and privileges of permanent
workmen' is one of them as indicated in Item 10.
4. The Bank has deliberately indulged in unhealthy labour practice by rotating employees like the
appellant to deny them benefits under the Industrial Law. It is disturbing to find that the
appellant was denied job because he had become better qualified.
In the instant case, the confidential circular directed the officers that workmen like the appellant
should not be engaged continuously but should as far possible, be offered work on rotation basis
and the case that the appellant is a 'badli' worker, have to be characterised as an unfair labour
practice.
5. Industrial adjudication in bona fide claims have been dragged on by employers for years by
raising technical and hyper technical pleas. It would always be desirable for employers to meet the
case of the employees squarely on merits and get them adjudicated quickly. It is too late in the day
for this Court to alert the employers that their attempt should be to evolve a contended labour.

8. WAY FORWARD-
The 2020 Bill provides for the constitution of Industrial Tribunals and a National Industrial Tribunal
to decide disputes under the Bill.  It states that the awards passed by a Tribunal will be enforceable
on the expiry of 30 days.  However, the government can defer the enforcement of the award in
certain circumstances on public grounds affecting national economy or social justice.   These
circumstances are when: (i) the central or state government is a party to the dispute in appeal, or (ii)
the award has been given by a National Tribunal.  The appropriate government can also make an
order rejecting or modifying the award.   The notification and the order will be tabled in the

LABOUR LAW 10 | P A G E
 RAJIV GANDHI NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF LAW, PATIALA

legislature.  The question is whether such a provision would violate the principle of separation of
powers between the executive and the judiciary, since it empowers the government to change the
decision of the tribunal through executive action.   Further, it raises the question of whether there is
a conflict of interest, as the government may modify an award made by the Tribunal in a dispute in
which it is a party.  

The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 had similar provisions.  In 2011, the Madras High Court
(affirming a 1997 Andhra Pradesh High Court judgement) struck down these provisions on
constitutional grounds and held that the power to the executive to decline enforcing an award or to
modify it, allows the executive to sit in appeal over the decision of the Tribunal, and therefore
violates the separation of powers between the executive and the judiciary, which forms a part of the
basic structure of the Constitution. This provision has been replicated in the Code.  Therefore, it
may violate the principle of separation of powers between the executive and the judiciary.  The
Standing Committee on Labour while examining an identical provision in the 2019 Bill had
recommended removing this provision in view of these judgements.

9. REFERENCES-

 https://labour.delhi.gov.in/content/third-schedule-0

 https://prsindia.org/billtrack/the-industrial-relations-code-2020

 https://www.srdlawnotes.com/2017/10/industrial-tribunals-constitution.html

 http://14.139.60.114:8080/jspui/bitstream/123456789/731/8/Labour%20Adudication%20in

%20India.pdf

 https://blog.ipleaders.in/industrial-disputes/

LABOUR LAW 11 | P A G E
 RAJIV GANDHI NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF LAW, PATIALA

 https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1901476/#:~:text=The%20action%20of%20the%20Reserve%20Bank

%20of%20India%2C%20Kanpur%2C%20in,Reserve%20Bank%20of%20India%2C%20Kanpur.

 https://www.livelaw.in/columns/the-industrial-relations-code-2020-implications-for-workers-

rights-164921

 https://www.casemine.com/act/in/5a979dce4a93263ca60b7457

 http://www.tnsja.tn.gov.in/article/Labour%20Law%20-%20FMIKJ.pdf

 https://www.jstor.org/stable/43950775

LABOUR LAW 12 | P A G E