1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

      CIVIL APPEAL NO.4658/2009

STATE OF M.P. & ANR.                     Appellant(s)

                               VERSUS

M.P.TRANSPORT WORKERS FEDN.                       Respondent(s)

WITH C.A. No. 7613/2009 (IV-A)

J U D G M E N T

SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.

1. The Labour Bar Association, Satna and M.P. Transport

Workers Federation sought to assail the provisions of the

Madhya  Pradesh  Labour  Laws  (Amendment)  and  Misc.

Provisions Act, 2002 (for short ‘the Amendment’) enforced

by  Notification  dated  5.8.2005  as  ultra  vires the

provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution. The history

to the dispute is that the power to try offences under

labour laws was conferred on the Labour Courts vide Madhya

Pradesh  Amendment  Act  No.43  of  1981,  as  against  the

regular criminal Courts.  That process was sought to be

reversed  by  the  Amendment  which  was  assailed.  The

rationale was stated to be that the Labour Courts were

already burdened and thus, did not have time to adjudicate

2

even the disputes arising out of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947 and the M.P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960. On

the other hand, the parties assailing the said Amendment

canvassed  that  the  object  of  shifting  the  trial  of

criminal  cases  relating  to  labour  disputes  to  Labour

Courts  had  been  conferred  by  Legislation  for  promoting

industrial harmony.   

2. In  terms  of  an  elaborate  judgment  of  over  fifty

pages  this  Amendment  was  struck  down  primarily  on  the

ground that Article 21 gave a right for speedy justice and

the Amendment in a way took away this right of speedy

justice.

3. We  have  heard  learned  counsel  for  the  State  and

since  none  appeared  for  the  respondents,  we  deemed  it

appropriate to appoint Mr. V. Giri, learned senior counsel

as Amicus Curiae to assist us in the matter.  Thus, we

have the benefit even of his submissions.

4. We  may  note  the  fact  that  such  criminal  offences

relating to labour laws of almost 16 statutes were being

tried  by  the  criminal  Courts  till  1981.   Thus,  the

experiment of assigning these cases to the Labour Courts

was carried from that year till 2002. The matters were

transferred to the criminal Courts as a sequitur to the

Amendment of 2002, till the said Amendment was struck down

by the impugned order dated 01.08.2008.  

5. On  the  appellant-State  approaching  this  Court,

3

notice was issued on 06.01.2009 and the operation of the

impugned order was stayed. Leave was granted on 20.07.2009

and the interim order was made absolute. The result is

that the criminal Courts continued to try the offences

relating to labour disputes even during the last 11 years.

6. We have to be conscious of the fact that we are

debating the legality of a Legislation which has passed

the muster of the elected Legislative Assembly and has

received the assent of the President of India. The scope

of challenge to such a Legislation is within a limited

domain i.e. on the twin test of (1) lack of Legislative

competence and (2) violation of any of Fundamental Rights

guaranteed in Part III of the Constitution of India. This

principle of law has been repeatedly emphasized by this

Court in Greater Bombay Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. United

Yarn Tex (P) Ltd1. In the facts of the present case, there

is no doubt about the Legislative competence and thus, it

is only the second aspect which has to be examined. The

impugned judgment seeks to bring the challenge within the

window of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, under

the right to speedy trial.

7. Actually what has been done is that the cases which

ought to have been tried by the regular criminal Courts

were sought to be transferred to the Labour Courts by the

Amendment of 1981 and only that process was sought to be

1 (2007) 6 SCC 236

4

reversed by the impugned Amendment of 2002.  Thus, in the

wisdom of the Legislature, the process would be better

served by maintaining the regular criminal Courts as a

forum  for  adjudication  of  such  disputes  which  have  a

criminal aspect, relating to the identical 16 labour law

statutes. It is not the function of this Court to test the

wisdom of the Legislature and substitute its mind with the

same, as has been reiterated in the cases of  State of

Andhra  Pradesh  &  Ors.  v.  McDowell  &  Co.  &  Ors.2.  &

Mylapore  Club  v.  State  of  Tamil  Nadu3. It  is  for  the

Legislature to weigh this aspect as to what would be the

appropriate method for providing expeditious justice to

the common man – an aspect which would be common both to

the wisdom of the Legislature and of the judiciary.

8. The process as evolved shows that the system, as it

is, is working in the criminal Courts for the last more

than a decade and no grievance has been made about the

same. The absence of any representation on behalf of the

respondent(s) further gives credence to this reasoning.

9. We are of the view that it is really not possible to

sustain the impugned order which is accordingly set aside

and  the  provisions  of  Madhya  Pradesh  Labour  Laws

(Amendment) & Misc. Provisions Act, 2002 are upheld.

10. The  appeals  are  accordingly  allowed  leaving  the

parties to bear their own costs.

2 (1996) 3 SCC 709 3 (2005) 12 SCC 752

5

11. We  appreciate  the  assistance  rendered  by  Mr.  G.

Giri, learned Amicus Curiae.

………………………………………....J. [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL]

…………………………………………….J. [K.M. JOSEPH]

NEW DELHI; JANUARY 29, 2020.

6

ITEM NO.103               COURT NO.11               SECTION IV-A

              S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A                        RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Civil Appeal  No(s).  4658/2009

STATE OF M.P. AND ANR.                      Appellant(s)

                               VERSUS

M.P.TRANSPORT WORKERS FEDN.                        Respondent(s) ([ RETAIN ITS POSITION ] )

WITH C.A. No. 7613/2009 (IV-A)   Date : 29-01-2020 These appeals were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH

For Appellant(s) Mr. Prashant Kumar, AAG Mr. Harsh Parashar, AOR Mr. Chanakya Sharma, Adv. Ms. Tanvi Bhatnagar, Adv.

                  Mr. Rahul Kaushik, AOR                     For Respondent(s)                     

         UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following                              O R D E R

The  appeals  are  allowed  in  terms  of  the  signed  reportable judgment.

Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.

(ASHA SUNDRIYAL)                                (ANITA RANI AHUJA)   A.R.-cum-P.S.        COURT MASTER  

[Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file]