http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: VISHWAMITRA PRESS KARYALAYA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE WORKERS OF VISHWAMITRA PRESS.THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH-

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02/12/1952

BENCH: BHAGWATI, NATWARLAL H. BENCH: BHAGWATI, NATWARLAL H. MAHAJAN, MEHR CHAND DAS, SUDHI RANJAN

CITATION:  1953 AIR   41            1953 SCR  272

ACT:    U.    P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, ss. 3, 4-U.   P. General  Clauses  Act,  1904,  s.  10-Industrial   Tribunal, whether  a " Court " Period fixed for making award  expiring on holiday-Award pronounced on next working day-Validity  of award.

HEADNOTE:   The  time prescribed for making an award under the  U.  P. Industrial  Disputes  Act, 1947, expired on  the  9th  June, 1951.   The Government extended the period up to 30th  June, 1951.  The 30th June was a public holiday and 1st July was a Sunday  and the Industrial Tribunal pronounced its award  on the 2nd July:   Held,  that an Industrial Tribunal to which a  dispute  is referred under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is a "  Court " within the meaning of s. 10 of the  U.P.  General Clauses  Act, 1904, and, as the 30th June and 1st July  were holidays,  the  award  pronounced on the 2nd  July  was  not invalid on the ground that it was not pronounced within  the period fixed. 273

JUDGMENT: CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 65 of  1952. Appeal from an award dated 17th November, 1951, made by  the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India, Calcutta, in Appeal -No. Cal. 280 of 1951. K.   P. Khaitan (Harnam Das, with him) for the appellant. H. B. Asthana for the respondents. Gopalji Mehrotra for the Intervener.  1952.  December 2. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by    BHAGWATI J.-This is an appeal by special  leave  against the  decision  of the Labour Appellate  Tribunal,  Calcutta, upholding  the award made by the State Industrial  Tribunal, Uttar Pradesh, with certain modifications.   An  industrial dispute arose between the  appellant,  the Vishwamitra  Press Karyalaya, Kanpur, and  the  respondents,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

the  workers of the Vishwamitra Press as represented by  the Kanpur Samachar Patra Karamchari Union, Kanpur, in regard to the alleged victimisation of certain workmen under the guise of  ’retrenchment.  That industrial dispute was referred  to the  Industrial Tribunal, by a notification dated  the  24th April,  1951.  The time for making the award expired on  the 9th  June,  1951,  and  on the 9th  June.  1951,  a  further notification  was issued extending the time for  making  the award up to the 30th June, 1951.  The 30th June, 1951, was a public  holiday  and  the  1st  July  was  a  Sunday.    The Industrial  Tribunal made its award on the 2nd  July,  1951, and pronounced it in open court on that day.  It was however thought  by the Uttar Pradesh Government that the award  was beyond  time  and  invalid and on the  18th  July,  1951,  a notification  was issued extending the period up to the  3rd July,  1951.   This award was challenged  by  the  appellant before the Labour Appellate Tribunal.  The Labour Appellate. Tribunal  negatived the Contentions of the  appellant.   The appellat applied 274 for  special  leave which was granted by this Court  on  the 21st December, 1951, limited to the following grounds:   "  (1) The Government had no power to extend the time  of the making of award after the expiry of the time  originally fixed, and the award made by the Adjudicator after such time is illegal, ultra vires, inoperative and void.   (2)In  any case the State Government I had  extended  the time  for  making the award till 30th June,  1951,  and  the Adjudicator’s award made after that date is void.   (3)That the extension of time by the Government on.  21st July,  1951,  after even the time  extended  previously  had expired, was ultra vires, and it could not make a void award a valid award."   The industrial dispute which arose between the  appellant and  the  respondents  was referred  by  the  Uttar  Pradesh Government  to  the Industrial Tribunal in exercise  of  the powers  conferred by sections 3 and 4 of the  Uttar  Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.  The Uttar Pradesh Government had in exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 (d)  of the  Act promulgated an order inter alia providing  for  the adjudication  of the industrial disputes referred by  it  to the Industrial Tribunals.  Paragraph 16 of that order ran as under :-   " The Tribunal or the Adjudicator shall hear the  dispute and  pronounce  its  decision  within  40  days   (excluding holidays  observed by courts subordinate to the High  Court) from  the  date  of  reference  made  to  it  by  the  State Government, and shall thereafter as soon as possible  supply a  copy  of the same to the parties to the dispute,  and  to such other persons or bodies as the State Government may  in writing direct.   Provided  that the State Government may extend  the  said period from time to time."  Paragraph  9 which prescribed the powers and functions  of Tribunals inter alia provided:- 275  "(9).   The  decision shall be in writing,  and  shall  be pronounced in open court and dated and signed by the  member or members of the Tribunal, as the case may be, at the  time of pronouncing it."  It  was  not disputed before us that the  original  period calculated in accordance with paragraph 16 above expired  on the 9th June, 1951, and the Uttar Pradesh Government validly

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

extended  the  period  up to the 30th June,  1951.   It  was however  contended that the Industrial Tribunal should  have made  its award on the 30th June, 1951, and not on  the  2nd July,  1951, as it purported to do.  It was urged  that  the provision  as  to  excluding  holidays  observed  by  courts subordinate to the High Court which obtained in paragraph 16 above  did  not apply when the period was extended up  to  a particular  date.   It would apply only if  the  period  was extended by a particular number of days when for the purpose of the computation of those days the holidays would have  to be  excluded  in the manner therein  mentioned.   The  Uttar Pradesh  Government  having extended the period up  to  the, 30th  June,  1951, it was submitted that the  award,  should have  been made by the 30th June, 1951, and, not  later  and having been made on the 2nd July, 1951, was therefore beyond time and invalid.   This  argument  might  well have prevailed  but  for  the provisions  of section 10 of the U. P. General Clauses  Act, 1904.  That section provides:-  "  Where,  by  any  United  Provinces  Act,  any  act   or proceeding is directed or allowed to be done or taken in any court  or  office on a certain day or  within  a  prescribed period, then, if the court or office is closed; on that  day or  the  last  day  of the prescribed  period,  the  act  or proceeding shall be considered as done or taken in due  time if  it is done or taken on the next day afterwards on  which the court or office is open." The  Industrial  Court was closed on the  30th  June,  1951, which  was declared a public holiday.  The 1st  July,  1951, was  a Sunday and it was competent to the ’Industrial  Court to pronounce its decision on the next 276 afterwards  on which the Industrial Court was n,  i.e.,  the 2nd  July,  1951.   Prima facie therefore  award  which  was pronounced on the 2nd July, 1, was well within time.  The  only  thing  which  Shri  Khaitan  counsel  for   the appellant urged before us therefore was that the  Industrial Court  was not a court within the meaning of section  10  of the U. P. General Clauses Act, "The court" according to  his submission  could  only  be construed mean a  court  in  the hierarchy  of the civil courts the State and  an  Industrial Court  did  not fall hin that category.  We  are  unable  to accept  this intention of Shri Khaitan.  The  Uttar  Pradesh industrial  Disputes Act, 1947, was an Uttar Pradesh t.  The General  Order  dated the 15th March, 1951,  which  provided inter  alia for the reference of the industrial dispute  for adjudication   and  the  manner  in  which  it  was  to   be adjudicated,  was  promulgated  by e  U.  P.  Government  in exercise of the powers conferred upon it by section 3 (d) of the  Act.  Paragraph (9) of the General Order  provided  for the  decision  ing pronounced by the Industrial Tribunal  in open   urt  and we fail to understand how it could  ever  be ged that the Industrial Tribunal was not a  court ithin  the meaning  of section 10 of the U. P. General lauses Act.   If the  Industrial Tribunal was thus a ourt within the  meaning of section 10 of the U. P. General Clauses Act the court was closed on the 30th ane, 1951, as also on the 1st July, 1951, and  the decion could be pronounced by the Industrial  Court on i.e next day afterwards on which it was open, i.e., on ne 2nd July, 1951.  In our opinion therefore the ecision  which was  pronounced on the 2na July, 951, ’was well within  time and was valid and binding’ in the parties.  The  above decision is determinative of this  appeal,  and the appeal will therefore stand dismissed with costs.                  Appeal dismissed.

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

Agent for the appellant: B. P. Maheshwari. Agent for the respondents and the intervener: C. P. Lal. 277