http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10  

PETITIONER: SHREE SITA RAM SUGAR CO.  LTD.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT AND OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT24/04/1973

BENCH: VAIDYIALINGAM, C.A. BENCH: VAIDYIALINGAM, C.A. GROVER, A.N.

CITATION:  1973 AIR 2281            1974 SCR  (1)  62  1974 SCC  (3) 239

ACT: U.P.  Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Section 6-G(1)-Power  of State Government to withdraw reference from Labour Court  or Tribunal-Power  is confined to withdrawal of  reference  for the purpose of transferring adjudication of the reference to another Labour Court or Tribunal.

HEADNOTE: The  appellant company retired three of its workmen and  the industrial  dispute thus arising was referred to the  Labour Court,   Gorakhpur,  for  adjudication  The  reference   was registered  by the Labour Court as Adjudication Case No.  93 of  1960.   The parties filed their  written  statement  and proceedings went on resulting in the Labour Court passing an order dated February 26, 1961 holding that the retirement of the  three workmen was neither legal nor  justified.   There were  similar disputes regarding the retirement  of  several other workmen and the dispute relating to them was  referred to  the same Labour Court and this reference was  registered as  Adjudication  Case No. 98 of 1960.   The  three  workmen whose  cases were the subject matter of the first  reference were also included in the second reference.  They applied to the Labour Court to have their names deleted from the second reference,  and they were accordingly deleted.   The  Labour Court gave its award in the second reference on February 27, 1961.   In this award the Labour Court  specifically  stated that  it  was not recording any finding with regard  to  the three  workmen  covered  by  the  first  reference.   On   a representation  made by the appellant the  State  Government issued  a notification on February 28. 1961 withdrawing  the first  reference  relating to the three  aforesaid  workmen. This  was  purported  to be done under  sub-section  (1)  of section 6-G of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.  Even so  the  State Government published the award in  the  first reference  on  May  6, 1961.  The  appellant  filed  a  writ petition  in  the  High  Court  under  article  226  of  the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari  quashing the  award dated February 26, 1961 and also for  a  mandamus directing the State Government to withdraw its  Notification dated May 6. 1961.  The single Judge as well as the Division Bench decided against the appellant. In appeal before this Court,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10  

HELD : (i) The wording of sub-section (1) of section 6-G  is capable  of  being  construed as  conferring  on  the  State Government  a  power  to  withdraw  any  proceedings  or  to transfer  a proceeding from one Labour Court or Tribunal  to another.   But  having regard to the scheme of  section  6-G read  in  the light of the other provisions of the  Act  the section  will have to be interpreted as giving to the  State Government  only a power to transfer a proceeding  from  one Labour Court to another.  When section 6 makes it obligatory that an award has  to be made by the tribunal concerned  and that It has to be published by  the State Government  within 30  days  of its receipt and declares that the award  on  is idle   to  expect  that  the  legislature  intended  to   by conferring  an  absolute power of withdrawal  on  Government State section 6-G.  The proper way of reading section 6-G is to  limit the power of  withdrawal referred to therein  only for the purpose of transferring proceedings from one  Labour Court or Tribunal to another. [75D] The  provisions  of  s. 33B and s. 6-D of the  Act  did  not support a contrary conclusion. Sirsilk  Ltd. and Others v. Government of Andhra  Pradesh  & Another [1964] 2 S.C.R. 448, distinguished. (ii) The  expression ’or’ in s. 6-G (1)  interposed  between ’withdraw  any proceedings’ or ’transfer a proceeding’  will have to be understood as ’and’. [75H] Mazagaon  Dock  Ltd. v. The Commissioner of  income-tax  and Excess Profits Tax, [1959] S.C.R., 848 relied on. 68

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1958 of 1968. Appeal  by special leave from the judgment and  order  dated August 2, 1966 of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal No. 960 of 1964. G.   B. Pai, Bhuvnesh Kumari, O. C. Mathur, J. B. Dadachanji & Co., for the appellant. Danial  Latifii and S. Ramachandran, for respondents Nos.  4 and 5. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VAIDIALINGAM,   J.  The  short  question  that  raises   for consideration  in this appeal, by special leave, is  whether the State Government has power- under section 6G of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) to withdraw an order already passed referring  a dispute  for  adjudication.   The facts leading  up  to  the filing of the Writ Petition by the appellant are as follows The  appellant,  a  public  limited  company,  carrying   on business  of manufacture and sale of sugar  from  sugarcane, employs   about  a  thousand  workmen  in  its  factory   at Baitalpur.   The  appellant retired three  workmen,  namely, Chhatradheri Lal Chandrika Prasad Srivastava and Bal  Karan. This led to an industrial dispute.  The State Government  by Notification  No. 785/LC/XVIII/LA-97(GR)/1959 dated  October 25,  1960,  referred the said dispute to the  Labour  Court, Gorakhpur, for adjudication.  This reference (hereinafter to be  referred to as Reference, No. 1) was registered  by  the Labour  Court  as  Adjudication Case No. 93  of  1960.   The parties filed their written statements and proceedings  went on  resulting  in the Labour Court passing  an  award  dated February 26, 1961, holding) that the retirement of the three workmen  was  neither legal nor justified.  This  award  was published  in  the U.P. Gazette dated May 6,  1961,  by  the State  Government’s  Notification dated April 4,  1961,  No.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10  

1176(EIO)36/  A/46(ST)-59.   There  were  similar   disputes regarding  the  retirement  of  several  other  workmen  and accordingly   that  dispute  was  referred  by   the   State Government  to  the same Labour Court  for  adjudication  by Notification No. 322(LC)XVIII-LA-115,(GS)/1959 dated October 31, 1960.  This reference (hereinafter to be, referred to as Reference  No.  11) was registered by the  Labour  Court  as Adjudication Case No. 98 of 1960.  At this stage it must  be mentioned  that Reference No. 11 related to several  workmen numbering  about  thirty or forty which  included  also  the three Workmen covered by Reference No. 1. The three  workmen covered by Reference No. 1 made an application to the Labour Court for deleting their names from Reference No. 11 on  the ground  that their grievance is the subject of  adjudication in  Case No. 93 of 1960.  Though the appellant opposed  this application,  the Labour Court by its order  dated  February 21,  1961, accepted the prayer of the three workmen  and  as such they ceased to have anything to do further in Reference No.  11.  Adjudication Case No. 98 of 1960, arising  out  of Reference No. 11, also resulted in an- award being passed by the  Labour Court on February 27, 1961.  In this award,  the Labour Court had decided the dispute on merits.  But it  has specifically stated that it is not record’ any finding  with ’regard to the ing 69 three  workmen  covered by Reference No. 1, as  their  names have  been excluded from Adjudication Case No. 98  of  1960, arising out of Reference No. 11.  This award dated  February 27,  1961,  was published in the State Gazette on  April  4, 196f. We have earlier mentioned that the award dated February  26, 1961,  in Adjudication Case No. 93 of 1960, arising  out  of Reference  No. 1, was published in the State Gazette on  May 6, 1961.  After the award was made on February 26, 1961, the State Government issued a Notification on February 28, 1961, withdrawing the Notification dated October 25, 1960,  making Reference No. 1. The order of withdrawal runs as follows              "GOVERNMENT OF UTTAR PRADESH                  LABOUR (A) DEPARTMENT            No. 167(LG)/XVIII-LA-97(GR)/1959             Dated Kanpur, February 28, 1961                         ORDER               Whereas  an  industrial  dispute  between  the               employers and the workmen of the concern known               as  Shree Sitaram Sugar Co.  Ltd.,  Baitalpur,               Distt.   Deoria relating to retirement of  the               workmen, was referred for adjudication to  the               Labour   Court  at  Gorakhpur  in  G.O.   No.’               785(LC)/XVIILLA-97  (GR)/1959,  dated  October               25, 1960.               And  whereas the same dispute is also  covered               by  G.O. No.  822  (LC)/XVIII-LA-115(GR)/1959,               dated October 31, 1960, as amended by G.O. No.               912(LC)/XVIII-LA115(GR)/1959,  dated  November               21,  1960,  referring  the  same  question  of               retirement  of  workmen  to  Labour  Court  at               Gorakhpur;               Now,  therefore,  in exercise  of  the  powers               conferred by sub section (1) of section 6-G of               the  U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947  (U.P.               Act  No.  XXVIII  of 1947),  the  Governor  is               pleased to order that G.O. No. 785(LC)/ XVIII-               LA-97(GR)/1959,   dated   October   25   1960,               referring  the said dispute for  adjudication,               shall be and is hereby withdrawn."

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10  

                                            Sd/- J. Prasad                                            Under Secretary." It will be noted from the above Notification that the  State Government  had withdrawn its previous  order-referring  the dispute  by  Virtue of powers stated to be  conferred  under subsection  (1)  of section-6--G of the Act.  We  have  also referred  to the fact that the award in Reference No. 1  was published  in the State Gazette on May 6, 1961.  It will  be noted  that the material dates to be considered with  regard to Reference No.1 are as follows :-               (a)   The    dispute    was    referred    for               adjudication by Notification dated October 25,               1960.               (b)   The award was made on February 26, 1961.               70               (c)  The Notification dated  October25,  1960,               referring   the  dispute  was   withdrawn   by               Notification dated February 28, 1961.               (d)  The  award  was published  in  the  State               Gazette dated May 6, 1961. It will be noted from these dates that the order withdrawing the original reference was made two days after the  Tribunal had  passed  the award.  The publication of  the  award  was after the State Government had withdrawn its original  order making the reference. The  appellant  filed the Writ Petition in  the  High  Court under  Article  226  for the issue  of  writ  of  certiorari quashing  the award dated February 26, 1961 and also  for  a mandaus  directing  the  State Government  to  withdraw  its Notification  dated May 6, 1961, publishing the award.   The proceedings  before  the High Court related to  the  matters arising out of Reference No. 1. According to the  appellant, the,  award dated February 28, 1961, had become  ineffectual and useless in view of the State Government having withdrawn the  Notification  dated  October 25,  1960,  referring  the dispute  for adjudication.  Its further contention was  that having  withdrawn on February 28, 1961, its  previous  order referring the dispute, the State Government had no power  to publish  the award, as it had done on May 6, 1961  and  that the said order publishing the award had to be revoked.   The union  contested  the Writ Petition on the ground  that  the State Government has no power under section 6-G to  withdraw an order already passed referring a dispute for adjudication and that, in any event, it has no such power after an  award has  been made by a Labour Court or Tribunal.  According  to the union, the order of withdrawal dated February 28,  1961, is of no effect and that the publication of the award on May 6, 1961, was valid and that the State- Government cannot  be called upon to revoke the same. The   learned   single  Judge  posed   two   questions   for consideration               (1)   whether  the  power  to  withdraw  under               section   6-G  of  the  Act  is  confined   to               withdrawal  for purposes of  transferring  the               proceedings to another Court or Tribunal; and               (2)   whether the power under section 6-G  can               be  exercised at any stage until the award  of               the  Labour  Court  or  Tribunal  has   become               enforceable under section 6-A of the Act. The learned single Judge did not consider the first question and  proceeded on the assumption that under section 6-G  the State  Government has power to Withdraw a reference  already made.   But, after considering the second question, he  came to  the  conclusion that the power of Withdrawal  cannot  be exercised  after  in  award had been made  by  the  Tribunal

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10  

concerned.  In this view, the learned single Judge held that the  order of withdrawal dated February 28, 1961, was of  no effect and that tie publication of the award on May 6, 1961, was  according to law.  In this view, the Court declined  to grant any relief to the appellant. 71 The appellant challenged the decision of the learned  single Judge in Special Appeal No. 960 of 1964.  The Division Bench of  the  Allahabad  High  Court  has  held  that  the  State Government  has  power  under section 6-G  to  withdraw  any proceedings pending before a. Labour Court or Tribunal.  But it  held  that as-the award had been made  on  February  26, 1961,  there were no proceedings pending before  the  Labour Court on February 28, 1961, when the order-of withdrawal was passed  by the State Government.  In this view the  Division Bench  held that it was not open to the State Government  to withdraw  the proceedings after the award had been  made  by the Tribunal and, therefore, the Notification dated February 28,  1961,  is of no effect.  By judgment  and  order  dated August  2, 1966, the learned Judges confirmed the  order  of the  single  Judge and dismissed the  Special  Appeal.   The management has come to this Court in this appeal. Mr.  G.  B. Pai, learned counsel for the  appellant,  placed considerable  stress on the language of section 6-G  of  the Act  and  pointed  out  that in addition  to  the  power  of transferring a proceeding- from one Labour Court or Tribunal to  another,  the said section, has  conferred  an  absolute right  on the State Government to withdraw an order  already passed referring a dispute for adjudication.  There is  only an  obligation on the State Government to make the order  in writing  and also give reasons for the action taken  by  it. The  counsel very heavily relied on section 6-D of  the  Act and urged that this power of withdrawing a reference can  be exercised till the date when the award becomes  enforceable. Therefore,  the mere fact that an award has been  made  does not take away the power of the State Government to, withdraw a reference.  In the case before us, the counsel pointed out that  the award had been made only on February 26, 1961  and the reference had been withdrawn by the State Government  on February  25,  1961,  long  before  the  award  had   become enforceable.   The  counsel  urged  that,  in  view  of  the circumstances pointed out above, the view of the High  Court that  the  State  Government has no power  to  withdraw  the reference, as the award has been made, is erroneous. Mr.   Daniel  Latifi,  learned  counsel  for   the   workmen concerned,  on_ the other hand, urged that the view  of  the High  Court that there is a power under section 6-G  in  the State Government to withdraw a reference is erroneous.   The counsel  pointed out that section 6-G confers on  the  State Government  only a power to transfer a proceeding  from  one Labour  Court  or  Tribunal to  another.   The  counsel-also pointed  out  that  section  6-D  has  no  bearing  in   the construction  of section 6-G of the Act.  When there  is  no power  in the State Government to Withdraw a reference,  the counsel  pointed  out,  the  question at  what  stage  the proceedings  can  be  withdrawn is  purely  academic.   Even assuming  that  there is a power under section  6-G  an  the State  Government to withdraw an order of reference  already made,  that-section, the counsel pointed out, does not  give power  to  order  such withdrawal after an  award  has  been passed.  According to him once an award has been made  by  a Labour Court or Tribun proceedings before it come to a close and  there  is  nothing for being  withdrawn  by  the  State Government.  The counsel supported the reasoning of the High Court  that  section 6-G does not confer any  Power  on  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10  

State Government to 72 withdraw an order of reference after an award had been  made by the Labour Court or Tribunal concerned.’ In our opinion, the first and foremost question that  should have been considered by the High Court is whither section 6- G  confers  a power on the State Government to  withdraw  an order  earlier passed referring a dispute for  adjudication. It is only when this point is answered in the  affirmative the,  further question is upto what stage can the  power  of withdrawal  be exercised by the State.  The, State of  Uttar Pradesh was a party before the learned single Judge as  well as the High Court and is 2nd respondent in the appeal before us.   We have already referred to the fact that  the  relief that  was asked for by the appellant was by way of  writ  of mandamus  directing  the State Government  to  withdraw  the publication,  made  in the Gazette of May 6,  1961,  of  the award  by  its order dated April 4, 1961.  This  relief  was asked  for  by the appellant on the ground  that  the  order dated   February   28,  1961,  of  the   State,   Government withdrawing the reference was well within its power.  In the Writ  Petition  the  powers  and  functions  of  the   State Government  under the Act came squarely  for  consideration. Under those circumstances one would have expected the  State Government  to appear before this Court and place its  point of   view   regarding  the   points   under   consideration. Unfortunately,  the  State Government has chosen  to  remain exparte in this appeal.  Hence we have to decide the  points in controversy only on the basis of the contentions advanced on behalf of the employer and the workmen. It is now necessary to refer to certain relevant  provisions of  the  Act.  According to the preamble, the Act  has  been enacted  to provide for powers to prevent strikes and  lock- outs and for the settlement of industrial disputes and other incidental matters.  Section 2(c) states :                "   ’  Award’  means  an  interim  or   final               determination of any industrial dispute or  of               any  question relating thereto by, any  Labour               Court or Tribunal and includes an  arbitration               award made under Section 5-B." The above definition takes in both interim and final awards. ’Section  4-K gives power to the State Government  to  refer for  adjudication an industrial dispute to the Labour  Court or an Industrial Tribunal under the circumstances  mentioned therein.   Section 5 gives power to the State Government  to include  other undertakings in any adjudication.  Section  6 dealing  with the proceedings before a Tribunal,  Submission of the award and its publication runs as follows :-               "6. Awards and action to be taken thereon-               (1)Where  an industrial dispute,  has  been               referred  to  a Labour Court or  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 State Government.               (2)The award of a Court or Tribunal  shall               be  in  writing  and shall be  signed  by  its               Presiding Officer.               73               (3)Subject to the provisions of sub-section               (4) every arbitration award and the award of a               Labour  Court  or  Tribunal,  shall  within  a               period  of  thirty days from the date  of  its               receipt by the State Government, be  published               in such manner as the State Government  thinks

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10  

             fit.               (4)The   State   Government   may    before               publication  of an award of a Labour Court  or               Tribunal  under  sub-section  (3),  remit  the               award for reconsideration of the  adjudicating               authority , and that authority shall, after               reconsideration submit its award to the  State               Government,  and  the State  Government  shall               publish  the award in the manner  provided  in               sub-section (3).               (5)Subject to the provisions of section  6-               A,  an award published under  sub-section  (3)               shall  be  final and shall not  be  called  in               question  in any court in any  manner  whatso-               ever.               (6)A  Labour Court, Tribunal or  Arbitrator               any  "either  of  its own  motion  or  on  the               application  of  any  party  to  the  dispute,               correct  any clerical or arithmetical  mistake               in the award, or errors arising therein from I               any accidental. slip or omission; whenever any               correction is made as aforesaid, a copy of the               order  shall be sent to the  State  Government               and the provision of this Act, relating to the               publication of an award shall mutatis mutandis               apply thereto." The  above  section  clearly indicates  that  when  once  an industrial  dispute has been referred for adjudication,  the Labour  Court  or Tribunal has to  conduct  its  proceedings expeditiously  and it has to submit its award to  the  State Government.   The  award has to be published  within  thirty days  of its receipt by the State Government.  Power has  no doubt been given to the State Government, before publication of  an award, to remit the same for  reconsideration.   When the  same-is  received  after  reconsideration,  the   State Government  is bound to publish the same, as provided  under sub-section  (3).  An award published under sub-section  (3) is  final  subject to the provisions-of  section  6-A.   The Labour  Court or Tribunal has power to correct any  clerical or  arithmetical  mistake  in the award.  But  if  any  such correction  is  made,  a  copy  of  the  order  making   the correction  will  have to be sent to the  State  Government. The provisions relating to Publication of an award apply  to the order making a correction in the award. Section  6-A deals with the commencement of the award.   The general  rule, as provided under sub-section (1) is that  an award becomes enforceable on the expiry of thirty days  from the  date of its publication under section  6.  Sub-,section (3) provides for a slightly different period depending  upon the circumstances mentioned, therein.  Sections 6-D and  6-G are as follows               "6-D.    Commencement   and   conclusion    of               proceedings, Proceedings before a Labour Court               or Tribunal shall be deemed to have  commenced               on the date of reference of a               74               dispute, to adjudication, and such proceedings               shall be deemed to have concluded on the  date               on  which the award becomes enforceable  under               section 6-A."               "6-G.  Power to transfer certain proceedings-               (1)The  State Government may, by  order  in               writing and for reasons to be stated  therein,               withdraw   any  proceeding  under  this   Act,               pending  before a Labour Court or Tribunal  or

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10  

             transfer a proceeding from one Labour Court or               Tribunal to another Labour Court or  Tribunal,               as  the case may be, for the disposal  of  the               proceeding and the Labour Court or Tribunal to               which  the proceeding is so  transferred  may,               subject to any special directions in the order               of  transfer, proceed either de novo  or  from               the stage at which it was so transferred;               Provided that where a proceeding under section               6-E  or  section  6-F  is  pending  before   a               Tribunal,   the   proceeding   may   also   be               transferred to a Labour Court.               (2)   Without  prejudice to the provisions  of               sub-section (1) any Tribunal, if so               authorized by the State Government, may  transfer               any proceeding under section 6-E or section 6-               F     pending  before  it to any  one  of  the               Labour  Courts specified for the  disposal  of               such  proceedings by the State  Government  by               notification  in the Official Gazette and  the               Labour  Court  to which the proceeding  is  so               transferred shall dispose of the same." Sections 6-D and 6-G substantially correspond to sub-section (3)  of  section  20 and section 33-B  respectively  of  the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act XIV of  1947). It must be stated that a superficial reading of  sub-section (1)  of  section 6-G in isolation will give  the  impression that the State Government has got two distinct and  separate powers, namely-               (a)   to  withdraw any proceedings  under  the               Act   pending   before  a  Labour   Court   or               Tribunal,; or               (b)   to  transfer  the proceedings  from  one               Labour  Court  or Tribunal to  another  Labour               Court or Tribunal for disposal of the same. It is on the basis of such a reading of the section that Mr. Pai,  the learned counsel, urged that there is  an  absolute power  in the State Government to withdraw an order  already passed  referring a dispute for adjudication.   This  power’ according  to the learned counsel, is distinct and  separate front  the power given under the same section to  the  State Government to transfer a proceeding from one Labour Court or Tribunal to another.  If we do not accept the contention  of Mr.  Pai  that  section 6-G confers two  such  distinct  and separate powers, section 6-D will not assist the  appellant. It  is  only if we hold that the Government has a  power  to withdraw  simpliciter,  the further question  regarding  the stage  upto which the power could be exercised.  will  arise for consideration. 75 We  have already pointed out that section 6 casts a duty  on the  Tribunal,  when a dispute has been referred to  it,  to deal  with it expeditiously and to submit its award  to  the State   Government.   The  State  Government  has  also   an obligation  to publish the award within thirty days  of  its receipt.  No doubt sub-section (4) of section 6 gives  power to  the  State Government, before publishing the  award,  to remit  the  same for reconsideration.  But still a  duty  is cast  upon  the  State Government to publish  the  award  as reconsidered  by  the  Tribunal within thirty  days  of  its receipt.   Section  6-A also gives certain  powers  toy  the State Government regarding the award, which normally becomes enforceable  under sub-section (1) on the expiry of thirty days from the date of its publication. Section  6-G, in our opinion, deals only with the  power  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10  

the  State  Government  to transfer a  proceeding  from  one Labour Court or Tribunal to another and for purposes of such transfer  to withdraw the proceedings from the Labour  Court or Tribunal from whom it is being transferred.  We are  free to  admit that the wording of sub-section (1) is capable  of being  construed  as conferring on the  State  Government  a power   to  withdraw  any  proceedings  or  to  transfer   a proceeding  from  one Labour Court or Tribunal  to  another. But having regard to the scheme of section 6-G, read in  the light  of  the  other provisions referred  to  earlier,  the section will have to be interpreted as giving to the  ,State Government  only a power to transfer a proceeding  from  one Labour Court to another.  When section 6 makes it obligatory that an award has to be made by the Tribunal concerned,  and that it has to, be published by the State Government  within thirty  days  of its receipt and declare that the  award  on publication  becomes  final, it is idle to expect  that  the legislature  intended to nullify the entire proceedings.  by conferring  an  absolute power of withdrawal  on  the  State Government  under  section 6-G.  The proper way  of  reading section 6-G is to limit the power of withdrawal, referred to therein,   only   for  the  purpose  of   transferring   the proceedings  from one Labour Court or Tribunal  to  another. That  the  expression  ’or’  in  section  6-G(1)  interposed between  ’withdraw  any proceedings’. . . . or  ’transfer  a proceeding’ will have tar be understood as ’and’.  So  read, the   power  conferred  under  section  6-G  on  the   State Government  is that of withdrawing any proceedings from  one Labour  Court  or  Tribunal and  transferring  the  same  to another. Mr.  Pai drew our attention to section 33-B of  the  Central Act   and  emphasised  that  the  said  section   is   words differently from section 6-G of the Act.  According to  him, the   wording  of  section  33-B  clearly  shows  that   the withdrawal  of any proceedings is only for transferring  the same  to  another Labour Court or Tribunal.   On  the  other hand,  the counsel-pointed out that a different  phraseology has  been used in section 6-G indicating the  conferment  of two  distinct  powers.   We have already  referred  to  this aspect and expressed the view that a superficial reading  of section 6-G will support the contention of Mr. Pai.  If  the expression ’or’, as mentioned earlier, is read as ’and’, the section  does not present any difficulty.  That  having  due regard  to the scheme of the statute and the purpose  sought to  be served the expression ’or’ can be read under  certain circumstances as ’and’ as has been laid down 76 by  this Court in Mazagaon Dock Ltd. v. The Commissioner  of Income-Tax  and  Excess Profits Tax.(1)  Adopting  the  same principle and having due regard to the object of section  6- G,  which  essentially  is  only  to  confer  in  the  State Government a power to transfer a proceeding from one  Labour Court or Tribunal to another, the expression ’or’ has to  be read in section 6-G as ’and’, If so read, sub-section (1) of section 6-G confers on the State Government only a power  to withdraw a proceeding from one Labour Court or Tribunal  and transfer the same to another.  It is needless to state  that transfer  of  a proceeding can only be when  it  is  pending before A Labour Court or Tribunal. Section 6-D, in our opinion, has no relevancy in  construing section 6-G.  Section 6-D is enacted for a totally different purpose. For instance section 6-E provides for  conditions of service etc. to remain unchanged in certain circumstances during the pendency of proceedings.  Similarly under section 6-F   a   question  may  arise  whether  an   employer   has contr

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10  

avened  the  provisions  of  section  6-E  during  the pendency  of proceeding before a Labour Court  or  Tribunal. It   may  be  quite  essential  to  consider   whether   any proceedings were pending before a Labour Court or  Tribunal. For  the  purpose of considering the question  whether  ,any proceedings  were  pending, the Act has  created  a  fiction under  section  6-D by indicating the starting  point  of  a proceeding before a Labour Court as well as its  conclusion. The  starting point of the proceedings has been  fixed  from the date of the reference and its termination has been fixed as  the  date on which the award becomes  enforceable  under section  6-A.   During  this period broadly  it  has  to  be considered  that  proceedings are pending  before  a  Labour Court  or  Tribunal.   We  need  not  refer  to  the   other provisions of the Act where the duration of the pendency  of proceedings  may  assume  importance.  Section  6-D  can  be invoked only in--those cases.  But it does not come into the picture, as mentioned earlier, in construing section-6-G. Mr.  Pai  referred us to the decision of this Court  in  The Sirsilk  Ltd., and Others v. Government of Andhra Pradesh  & Another(2), where the provisions of section 17 and 18 of the Central  Act were read in harmony and the State  Government was directed not to publish the award though its publication was  mandatory.  We are not faced with ,such a situation  in the  case before us.  We have already referred to  the  fact that  in  Adjudication Case No. 98 of 1960, arising  out  of Reference  No. 11, respondents 4 to 6 herein  had  requested the Labour Court to exclude them from the said  adjudication on the ground that they are already covered by  Adjudication Case  No.  93 of 1960, arising out of Reference No.  1.  The Labour Court passed an order on February 21, 1961, excluding the  said  three workmen from Adjudication Case ’No.  98  of 1960.   That  means the said three workmen  had  no  further interest in the said Adjudication Case.  If that is so,  the award  passed on February 26, 1961, in the case arising  out of Reference No. 1 was perfectly correct and the publication of  the said award on May 6, 1961, was also in pursuance  of the mandatory provisions of the Act.  ’There is no  question of any conflict between the two awards.  Hence the appellant cannot seek any assistance from the decision of this (1) [1959] S.C.R. 843.   (2) [1954] (2) S.C. R. 448. 77 Court  in  The  Sirsilk Ltd., and Others  v.  Government  of Andhra  Pradesh& Another(1) and it cannot ask for a writ  of mandamus  directing  the  State  Government  to  cancel  the publication of the award. We are in agreement with the view of the High Court that the appellant  is  not  entitled  to  any  relief,  though   for different  reasons.  The appeal fails and is dismissed  with costs. G.C                Appeal dismissed. (1) [1964] 2 S. C. R. 448. 78