Skip to main content


2. Pwattory Mazdoor Panchayat vs. The Perfect Pwattory Co. Ltd. and others, AIR 1979 SC 1356

Ref :- AIR 1979 SC 1356

 Sub :- This case is based on Sections 10 and 154 of the Industrial Dis This case 1947 which concerns with the jurisdiction of the putes Act, ribunal and also based on Sections and 82 of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960.

Facts of the case: -

1. The Perfect Pwattory Company manufactured stone ware pipe and other anti-heat equipment in its factory.

2. This factory was known as The Perfect Pwattory Works.

3. The Company took Pollypanther mines on lease for its fac- tory in which 81 labourers were appointed.

4. This Company issued a notice on 24 April 1976 stating that it was going to close down the factory on 1 July 1976.

5. The Company cited economic and other reasons for issu- ing this notice.

6. Because of this notice, Pwattory Mazdoor Panchayat which is an appellant in the matter, filed first application in the DeputyLabour Commissioner, MP and preferred second application before the Divisional Labour Commissioner, Jabalpur for compromise in the proceedings.

7. These two proceedings were done because The Perfect Pwattory Works is such an industry to which MP Indus- trial Act 1960 applied and Pollypanther mines is an indus- try which was governed by the Industrial Disputes Act.

8. But, unfortunately these proceedings for compromise re- mained failure.

9. As a result, the MP Government referred this industrial dispute for a trial before the industrial tribunal under Sec- tion 51 of MP Industrial Act.

10. In this connection, two questions were primarily referred. Firstly, whether the proposal by the Manager of the Per- fect Pwattory Company Ltd. for closing down this factory is proper. Secondly, if it is decided that the proposal is right, how much compensation the workman is entitled to get.

The industrial court is also asked to see whether the manager of the Company can be prevented from taking last decision to close downthe factory and whether the employees can be provided an interim relief.

Industrial Court:-

The Industrial Court while giving interim judgment, refused to issue an injunction and as a result, the Defendant closed down the Com- pany on 1 July 1967. After closing down the Company, the Government referred the matter to Central Government Industrial Tribunal for decision.

Industrial Court and Tribunal gave the following judgment -

According to the industrial court, it has neither any right to see whether the business has really been closed down or not nor it has any right to see the justification of closing it down. Whereas the Central Government Industrial Tribunal has decided that it has a right to see whether the business has really been closed down or not but it has no right to see the justification of closing it down.

Three petitions have been filed against these judgments, one by the Appellant and two others by the Defendant.

High Court :-

The High Court dismissed the petition of the Appellant and al- lowed the petitions by the Defendants and issued a certificate to prefer an appeal before the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court:-

It was held by the Supreme Court that it was not the case of the Appellant that the business was not really closed down and if this had been his matter, then it would have been given under Section 82 of the MP Industrial Relation Act, and not under Section 51 of the Act.

The Supreme Court also held that the High Court had no juris- diction to additionally consider the directions of both the Tribunals and to see whether the closure of the business was justified or not. It was justified.

Judgment: Appeal allowed.

Law points:-

1. That the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is limited to the in- dustrial disputes which are referred to it clearly for the appreciation and trial.

2. The Tribunal can not give decisions on those subjects which have not been referred to it.

3. Where triable subjects point out that subject of the dis- pute between the parties was not the closure of the busi- ness rather the subject was that whether the closure was justified or not. In such a condition the Tribunal Court has no jurisdiction to see whether the business is closed or not.

4. When the subject of the dispute between the parties is re- garding the closure of the business, only then the State Government may refer the matter to the Labour Court or the Industrial Court under Section 82 of the MP Industrial Relation Act to see whether the strike, lockout or closure is illegal or not.

Key Point Suggestions by Gudda Bhaiya 


Popular posts from this blog

Important Topics for Semester Exam in Environmental Law useful for LL.B Students.

  1.           State facts and the principles of law laid down in the case of Monera Mandal Sahkari Shakkar Karkhana Society vs M.P. Board of Prevention of Water Pollution, 1993 M.P.L.J.270.   2.            Power to take samples of effluents and procedure to be followed in connection therewith under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 3.            Discuss the various provisions Indian Constitution concerning Environmental Protection. What are the main features of the Environment (Protection) Act 1986 and the provisions of penalties and procedure for violation of provisions, rules, orders and instructions. 4.            Describe the special provisions in the case of supersession of the Central Board or the State Board constituted under the Water (prevention and control of pollution) Act, 1974. Explain in brief about the provisions regarding appeal and revision under this Act. 5.            Explain the objects and main provisions of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollut

1. A. Mackenzie vs. J S Izzak, AIR 1970 SC 1906

Ref : AIR 1970 SC 1906 Sub :- This case is based on Section 2 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923. Facts of the case :- 1. S.S. Dwarka is a ship whose owner is The British India Stream Navigation Limited and Mackenzie was its agent. 2. Shaikh Ibrahim Hasan was a class II seaman on this ship and who was missing from the ship. 3. It was clear from the medical log book that he had a chest pain on 13 December 1961 and he was suffering from it. 4. It was known from the medical checkup that nothing was unusual and medical officer gave him medicines and con- firmed his recovery and joining back on his duty next day. 5. It was known from the log book of the office on 16 Decem- ber 1961 that he was on the ship that day and he was seen on the bridge at 2:50 in the morning. 6. He was found missing at 6:15 in the morning. The master of the ship informed on the radio message at 7:30 in the morning that a seaman is missing between Khoramsar and Asahar and he is likely to be missing in the river.