LABOUR LAW-I

Course Coordinator
Dr. Jagdish W. Khobragade
Assistant Professor of Law

MAHARASHTRA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, NAGPUR

2023
 ADJUDICATION SYSTEM

•Origin and Growth of Adjudication

System

•Labour Courts

•Industrial Tribunals

•National Tribunals
 Labour Courts
Section 7 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Labour Courts.-
(1) The appropriate Government may, by notification in the Official
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) 2 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 District
Judge or an Additional District Judge; or 3
(d) 4 ] he has held any judicial office in India for not less than seven
years; or
(e) 4 ] he has been the presiding officer of a Labour Court constituted
under any Provincial Act or State Act for not less than five years.
 Labour Courts
Section 7 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Continue..
Labour Courts.-
([(f)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 labour department
including three years of experience as Conciliation Officer:Provided
that no such Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner or Joint Labour
Commissioner shall be appointed unless he resigns from the service of
the Central Government or State Government, as the case may be,
before being appointed as the presiding officer; or]
[(g)he is an officer of Indian Legal Service in Grade III with three years'
experience in the grade.]
 Industrial Tribunals
7A. Tribunals.-(1) The appropriate Government may, by notification in the
Official Gazette, constitute one or more Industrial Tribunals for the adjudication
of industrial disputes relating to any matter, whether specified in the Second
Schedule or the Third Schedule 5 and for performing such other functions as
may be assigned to them under this Act].
(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 District Judge or
an Additional District Judge; [***]]
[(b)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 labour department including three years of
experience as Conciliation Officer:Provided that no such Deputy Chief Labour
Commissioner or Joint Labour Commissioner shall be appointed unless he
resigns from the service of the Central Government or State Government, as
the case may be, before being appointed as the presiding officer; or]
[(c)he is an officer of Indian Legal Service in Grade III with three years’
experience in the grade.]
(4)The appropriate Government may, if it so thinks fit, appoint two persons as
assessors to advise the Tribunal in the proceeding before it.]
 National Tribunals.
Section 7B in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
7B. National Tribunals.-(1) The Central Government may, by
notification in the Official Gazette, constitute one or more National
Industrial Tribunals for the adjudication of industrial disputes which, in
the opinion of the Central Government, involve questions 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 Government.
(3) A person shall not be qualified for appointment as the presiding
officer of a National Tribunal 3 unless he is, or has been, a Judge of a
High Court].
(4) The Central Government may, if it so thinks fit, appoint two persons
as assessors to advise the National Tribunal in the proceeding before
it.
Appointment and Qualification of the Presiding Officer

State of Maharashtra Versus Labour Law Practitioners Associati

on & Ors. - LNIND 1998 SC 189
((1998) 2 SCC 688)AIR 1998 SC 1233[1998] 1 LLJ 868[1998] 1
SCR 793LNIND 1998 SC 189
.

234 Constitution of India, 1950 Notification appointing Assistant

Commissioners of Labour as Judges of Labour CourtSet aside
and direction to comply with Article givenPrinciple of separation
of powers and independence of judiciary requires persons
presiding over Industrial and Labour Courts constitute judicial
service exclusively of judicial posts.
Appointment and Qualification of the Presiding Officer

State of Maharashtra Versus Labour Law Practitioners Association & Ors. - LNIND
1998 SC 189 ((1998) 2 SCC 688)AIR 1998 SC 1233[1998] 1 LLJ 868[1998] 1 SCR
793LNIND 1998 SC 189.

HELD: The State of Maharashtra in this appeal challenged a judgment of the High
Court by a Single Judge and confirmed by a Division Bench in appeal, by which a
notification dated March 8, 1979 appointing Assistant Commissioners of Labour as
Judges of Labour Courts was set aside and direction to the State to comply with Art.
234 was given while making appointments of Judges of the Labour Court. The
Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. It observed bearing in mind the principle of
separation of powers and independence of the Judiciary, judicial-service
contemplated a service exclusively of judicial posts in which there would be a
hierarchy headed by a District Judge. The High Court had rightly come to the
conclusion that the persons presiding over Industrial and Labour Courts would
constitute a Judicial service so defined. Therefore the recruitment of Labour Court
judges is required to be made in accordance with Article 234 of the Constitution.
Appointment and Qualification of the Presiding Officer

Gujarat Mazdoor Sabha vs State Of Gujarat And Anr. (1998) 2 GLR 1135, (1999)
ILLJ 39 Guj
On a reference made by a Division Bench, this case has come before us in Full
Bench. In the Reference Order, learned Judges of the Division Bench doubted the
correctness of the decision rendered by another Bench in the case reported as T. R.
Mishra & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors., (1992-I-LLJ-522). In the reported decision,
this Court took the view that Labour Court and Industrial Court are not covered by the
expressions "District Judge" and "Judicial Service", within the meaning of Arts. 235
and 236 of the Constitution and they are not under the administrative control of the
High Court. The correctness of this view is the issue to be dealt with.
Held: In view of the above conclusions arrived at by us, we direct the respondents
that no appointment, promotion or transfer of the Presiding Officers of Labour Courts,
Industrial Courts or Industrial Tribunals under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or the
Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 be made or ordered without complying with the
provisions of Chapter VI of the Constitution of India.
 Adjudication System
Jurisdiction of Labour Court, Tribunal and National Tribunal
Power and Functions of Labour Court, Tribunal and National Tribunal
M/S HARYANA SURAJ MALTING LTD. V. PHOOL CHAND - LNIND 2018 SC
306 2018 (2) LLN 555 (SC)2018 (3) J.L.J.R. 3212018 (3) KLJ 132018 (3) MPLJ
172018 (3) SCT 97.
Employment & Labour Law—Exparte Award—Set Aside Application—Industrial Disputes Act,
1947—Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court passed exparte award against Appellant/Management—
Appeals preferred challenging same—Conflict arose in deciding same and reference made to
Larger bench—Whether Industrial Tribunal is functus officio after award became enforceable
and is prevented from considering application for setting aside ex parte award—Whether
Tribunal can set aside exparte order after alleged number of days of its publication—Held,
Tribunal is competent to entertain application in exercise of its ancillary powers, if party shows
sufficient cause for its absence when set ex parte and that power cannot be circumscribed by
limitation—Award should be passed in compliance with principles of natural justice to become
binding—Award passed denying opportunity of hearing when there was sufficient cause for non-
appearance can be challenged on ground of being nullity—Application cannot be rejected on
ground that same was filed after award became enforceable—Tribunal is not functus officio after
award becomes enforceable as far as setting aside ex parte award is concerned—Act is welfare
legislation intended to maintain industrial peace and certain powers to be conceded to Tribunal
called ancillary, incidental or inherent to do justice—Awards remitted to Labour Court for
consideration as to whether there was sufficient cause for non-appearance of Appellant—
Appeals disposed of.
 Adjudication System
The Manager, Hotel Imperial vs The Chief Commissioner And Other, AIR1959
SC 1214, 1960 SCR (1) 279.
Industrial Disputes Act (XIV of 1947), section 10 —Reference under—Validity—
Essentials.

Held: Where the two parties to the dispute are dearly indicated, namely, (1) the
employer which is the management of the hotel and (2) the workmen employed in the
hotel, the reference is valid and it does not become incompetent simply because it is
mentioned therein that the workmen will be represented by such and such Union in
the dispute. Though the reference mentions the Union itself, such Union can be
served through some officer, such as its president or secretary and it is that officer
who will really represent the workmen before the Tribunal. It is unnecessary for the
purposes of section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act where the dispute is of a general
nature relating to the terms of employment or conditions of labour of a body of work
men, to mention the names of particular workmen who might have been responsible
for the dispute. It is only when a dispute refers to dismissal, etc., of particular
workmen as represented by the Union that it may be desirable to mention the names
of the workmen concerned. (In the instant case names of workmen to whom notice of
dismissal had been given were mentioned in the order of reference and the order of
reference cannot be attacked as vague.)
11A. Powers of Labour Court, Tribunals and National Tribunals to give
appropriate relief in case of discharge or dismissal of workmen
1
[11A. Powers of Labour Court, Tribunals and National Tribunals to give
appropriate relief in case of discharge or dismissal of workmen. Where an
industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been
referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in
the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National
Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal
was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or
dismissal and direct re-instatement of the workman on such terms and conditions,
if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award
of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances of
the case may require :
Provided that in any proceeding under this section the Labour Court, Tribunal or
National Tribunal, as the case may be, shall rely only on the materials on record
and shall not take any fresh evidence in relation to the matter.]

Other Powers of Labour Court, Tribunal and National Tribunal are given
under Section 11 of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Bharat Forge Company Limited vs A.B. Zodge, AIR1996 SC
1556, 1996 SCC (4) 374

Industrial Disputes Act (XIV of 1947), Sec. 11-A, proviso

Employer, held, has right to adduce evidence for the first item
before Tribunal
A domestic enquiry may be vitiated either for noncompliance of
rules of natural justice or for perversity. Disciplinary action taken
on the basis of vitiated enquiry does not stand on a better footing
than a disciplinary action with no enquiry. The right of the
employer to adduce evidence in both the situations is well-
recognized? The employer is entitled to adduce evidence, for the
first time before the tribunal even if the employer has held no
enquiry on the inquiry held by the employer is found to be
perverse.
Rajendra Jha vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court, AIR 1984 SC1696, 1985 SCR (1) 544
Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 S. 33 (2)(b) Order of dismissal passed by employer Employer
seeking approval of Labour Court under S. 33(2) (b) Employer orally requesting permission to
adduce evidence before the court Employee objecting Scope of S. 33(2) (b) .

Held: The judgment of the Labour Court does not support the allegation of the employee that the
employer had not asked for an opportunity to lead the necessary evidence. The events which
supervened the Labour Court's Order strengthen the conclusion that there is no substance in the
contention of the appellant that the Labour Court acted on its own initiative in allowing the
employer to lead evidence. On facts it is seen that the order passed by the Labour Court allowing
the employer to lead evidence has been accepted and acted upon by the appellant. [, and ]On
the contention that there was no estoppel against law,
Held: A question of law which does not require a fresh investigation into the facts may be allowed
to be raised at a later stage of a proceedings, but that is subject to the qualification that the
question is not concluded by a decision between the same parties. In this case, it was not so. In
so far as the question of res judicata was concerned, if an erroneous decision on a question of
law is rendered by a court by assuming jurisdiction which it does not possess, it may be possible
to argue that the decision cannot operate as res judicata even between the same parties. But in
the instant case, the Labour Court had the jurisdiction to decide whether to allow the employer to
lead evidence or not. The Labour Court had held, by one and the same order, that the
departmental enquiry was vitiated but that the employer should be allowed to lead evidence to
justify the order of dismissal. The appellant's contention that the employer did not ask for an
opportunity to lead evidence at all and that the Labour Court acted gratuitously is not possible to
accept. The Labour Court cannot be said to have acted without jurisdiction.
7C. Disqualifications for the presiding
officers of Labour Courts, Tribunals and
National Tribunals

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) He has attained the age of sixty-five years.]
Section 8. Filling of vacancies

If, for any reason a vacancy (other than a temporary absence)

occurs in the office of the presiding officer of a Labour Court,
Tribunal or National Tribunal or in the office of the Chairman or
any other member of a Board or Court, then, in the case of a
National Tribunal, the Central Government and in any other
case, the appropriate Government, shall appoint another person
in accordance with the provisions of this Act to fill the vacancy,
and the proceeding may be continued before the Labour Court,
Tribunal, National Tribunal, Board or Court, as the case may be,
from the stage at which the vacancy is filled.
#how to
write?