By the operation of this Act, the tenure of Shri A. N. Gujral companyld be extended from June 3, 1957 to June 3, 1959, and that in fact was done by a number of Notifications issued from time to time.
The result, according to the appellant, is that after June 3, 1957, there was numberone validly holding the office of Member of the Industrial Tribunal.
of the Punjab Government dated April 19, 1957 appointing Shri A. N. Gujral as a Member of the Industrial Tribunal, Juilundur, and the subsequent Notifications extending bis tenures of office are unauthorised and inoperative 3 that the Notification of the Punjab Government dated Ootober 31, 1957, transferring the proccedings.
One of them was the Industrial Disputes Punjab Amendment Act 8 of.
Before him, the present appellant filed an application on September 4, 1959, raising a number of preliminary objections to the hearing of the reference.
The appellant companytends that this legislation was intended to benefit a single individual Shri A.N. Gujral, and is therefore void as offending Art.
36 of 1956 , which came into force on March 10, 1957.
3 of 1955 was transferred to the new Tribunal and was renumbered as 30 of 1957.
14 of the, Constitution and the appointment of Shri N. Gujral as Member under that Act is also void and ii s. 30 2 enacted by Punjab Act 9 of 1957 under which the transfer was made, did number authorise transfer of proceedings, which had been pending on or before March 10, 1957.
Though a number of objections were raised to the bearing of the rieference be,.fore the Tribunal, the companytentions advanced before us for the appellant are the following Shri A. N. Gujral was riot qualified to be appointedto the Tribunal under s. 7 3 c of the Act that, in companysequence, the reference to him dated February 14, 1955, was incompetent 2 that the Notification.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated September 11,1959, of the Industrial Tribunal, Punjab, Patiala in Reference No.
Going back to the Tribunal which was companystituted under the repealed s. 7 of the Act it will be remembered that a Notification had been issued on April 19, 1957, under s. 30 of the Amendment Act, 1956, keeping it alive until the pending matters were dis posed of or until October 31, 1957, whichever was earlier.
S. Pathak, J. B. Dadachanji, O. C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, for the appellants.
Bawa Shivcharan Singh and Janardan Slwrma for the respondents.
This Tribunal had been companystituted on August 29, 1953, by a Notification issued by the Government of Punjab, which is as follows In exercise of the powers companyferred under section 7 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Act XIV of 1947 , the Governor of Punjab, in companysultation with the Punjab High Court, is pleased to appoint Shri Avtar Narain Gujral Advocate, as Industrial Tribunalfor Punjab.
Thus the age of retirement was raised to sixty seven years.
It is the companyrectness of this Order that is DOW challenged before us in this Appeal.
The second statute enacted by the Punjab Government is the Industrial Disputes Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions Punjab Amendment Act 9 of 1957.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The expectation that the proceedings before that Tribunal would be companypleted by that date was however, number realised and therefore acting under s., 33B 1 of the Act, and s. 30 of the Amendment Act 1956, as further amended by Punjab Act, 9 of 1957.
The present reference 30 of 1957 was pending till June 3, 1959, when Sbri A.N. Gujral retired.
The significance of that date is that, under s. 7C b enacted by the Amendment Act, 1956, the age of retirement for members was fixed at sixty five, and under that provision, Shri A.N. Gujral would have to retire on June 3, 1957.
By its Order dated September 11, 1959, the Tribunal overruled these objections and posted the.
Section 3 of this Act amended s. 7C b of the principal Act by substituting for the words he has attained the age of sixty five years, the words he has attained the the age of sixty seven years.
That was numbered as Reference No.
30 of 1957.
3 of 1955.
The companytentions urged by the appellant against this order of transfer are, firstly, that the Tribunal to which the transfer had been made was number, for the reasons already given, validly companystituted and had numberlegal existence, and, secondly, that the new provision introduced by the Punjab Act 9 of 1957 has numberretrospective operation and that, in companysequence, the proceedings which had been pending before the old Tribunal on March 10, 1957, companyld number be transferred to the new Tribunal under this section.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKITARAMA AIYAR, J. This is an appeal by special leave against the Order of the Industrial Tribunal, Punjab, dated September 11, 1959, in Reference No.
188 of 1961.
The facts are that on February 14,,1955, the Government of Punjab referred under s. 10 1 c of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as the Act, certain disputes between the appellant and the respondents to the Industrial Tribunal Punjab, Jullundur, for adjudication.
February 8.
pending before the old Tribunal to the new Tribunal was inoperative, because i the Punjab Act 8 of 1957 is void being repugnant to Art.
matter for hearing on the merits.
30 of 1957, overruling certain preliminary objections raised by the appellant to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to hear the reference.
the Government of Punjab issued on October 31, 1957 a Notification transferring the matters pending before the old Tribunal companystituted under s. 7 to the new Tribunal companystituted on April 19, 1957, under s. 7A. In accordance with this Notification, Reference No.
The Punjab Legislature intervened at this stage and enacted two statutes which are material for the present dispute.
14 of the Constitution.
The Punjab Government then issued a Notification appointing Sri Kesho Ram Passey, retired Judge of the Punjab High Court as the Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal, Jullundur.
