INTRODUCTION
- CITATIONS: 1964 AIR 160, 1964 SCR (2) 448
- AUTHOR: K Wanchoo
- PETITIONER: THE SIRSILK LTD. AND OTHERS
- RESPONDENT: GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANOTHER
- DATE OF JUDGMENT: 20/03/1963
- BENCH: WANCHOO, K.N., GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. & GUPTA, K.C. DAS
Interpretation of
statutes means that the court has to find out the true sense of the act, by
finding out its natural meaning. The intention of the legislature has to be
determined so that the lows can apply accordingly. The doctrine of harmonious
construction is considered a very important “Thumb rule” for the interpretation
of statutes.
This doctrine states that
whenever any conflict or disputes arise between two important sections or two
important provisions of an act or a statute then the interpretation must be
done harmoniously. Under harmonious construction, the purpose and the intention
of the statute or the Act have to be understood as a whole. The judiciary has
to understand what the Act is saying as a whole, to make these sections of the
act more meaningful.[i]
“THE COURT
INTERPRETED THIS CASE BY APPLYING THE DOCTRINE OF HARMONIOUS CONSTRUCTION.”
FACTS OF THE CASE
In this case, few disputes
arise between the employer and the Workmen. So, on 6 June 1956, an order was
made to the Industrial tribunal, Andhra Pradesh for adjudication. After a year
in 1957, the tribunal came up to the conclusion that it will send an award to
the government. Under the Industrial Dispute Act 14 of 1947, it has been
mentioned that the appropriate government has to publish the award and the period
for this is within 30 days from the date of its receipt. This has been given
under section 17 of the Industrial dispute act. However, before the publishing
of the award by the government under section 17, both the disputed parties on 1st
October. 1957 decided to come up with a settlement. So, the disputed party
decided to address this settlement to the government. They wrote a letter that
was signed by both the employer and the employee, and it was stated in the
letter that the government need not publish the award because they have come up
with the settlement. However, the government refused to hold back the award
publication. The reason for this is given by the government is that under
section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act 14 of 1947, it is mandatory for the
government that the award has to be published by then. And when it is decided
by the government, they cannot hold it back.[ii]
Later on, the appellant decided to find a route petition to the High Court in virtue of Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. They stated that since the disputed party has already settled, so the government should not publish the award, which is sent to them by, the Industrial Tribunal.
HIGH COURT
DECISION.
In this case, the High Court held that since it is mandatory for the government under section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act the government has to publish the award, which is sent to them. It is not at their discretion that they can hold the award. The High Court stated that when the law is saying that the award has to be published by the government, then the court cannot order the government not to publish it. Therefore, the petition was dismissed. The disputed party then moves to the Supreme Court.
ARGUMENTS OF THE
APPELLANT
The appellant argued that
when the employer and the employee had already settled on section 18(1) of the
Industrial Dispute Act, now, the award must not be published by the government.
This settlement between the disputed party must be respected by the government, which indeed helps in maintaining industrial peace.
ARGUMENTS OF THE
GOVERNMENT
The government of Andhra Pradesh has firmed its decision and argued that they must publish the award which is forwarded to them by the Industrial Tribunal under section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, which has to be done within 30 days after receiving the award.
ISSUES RAISED
The issue raised in this case is whether under Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, is it mandatory for the government or is it at their discretion, to stop the award publication?
INTERPRETATION BY THE SUPREME COURT
- The Supreme Court first observed section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, which states that “every award shall, within 30 days from the date of its recipe by the appropriate government, be published in the manner as the appropriate government things fit. Secondly, it says that the award published under 17(1) shall be final and shall not be called in question by any court”
- Here the use of the word shall under section 17(1), is given to make it mandatory for the government that the award has to be published within the given time.
- The appellant party relied on section 18(1) of the Industrial Dispute Act, which states that “a settlement arrived at between the parties, shall be binding on the parties to the agreement.”
- It has been mentioned under section 18(3) that, “an award which has become enforceable, shall be binding on all parties to the dispute.”
- So, section 17(1) is mandatory under which the government has to publish the award once received by the International Tribunal. Section 18(1) is also mandatory, as once the settlement arrives between the disputed party, it is binding upon both parties.
- But in this case, the parties reach the settlement when the award is already sent to the government by the Tribunal and under the Industrial Dispute Act, no section deals with such a situation.
- So, the Supreme Court comes up with the view that the only way to solve the dispute arising between section 18(1) and section 18(3) is when the disputed party jointly informs the government that they have arrived at a settlement which is binding on them through section 18(1) than the government will not publish the award.[iii]
THE DECISION OF
THE SUPREME COURT
It was held by, KN
Wanchoo J. that even though section 17(1) states that it is mandatory for the
government and the government, is bound to publish the award which is sent to
them by the Industrial Tribunal. But the dispute that arose, in this case, is exceptional.
A pacification or conciliation has to be done between sections 18(1) and 18(3).
The conciliation between these 2 sections can only be done by holding the
publication of the award when the disputed parties reached a settlement that is
binding upon them.
So, the Supreme Court ordered the government that the award will not be published as the aggrieved party reached a settlement that is binding on them, according to section 18, one of the Industrial Dispute Act.[iv]
ANALYSIS OF THE
JUDGMENT
This case is based on section 17 and section 18 of the Industrial Dispute Act,14 of 1947 which states: -
SECTION 17- PUBLICATION OF REPORTS AND AWARDS-
“Every court with any minute of dissent recorded there within, every arbitration award and every award of a labor court, Tribunal or National Tribunal shall, within 30 days from the date of its receipt shall be published by the appropriate Government.
Secondly, it says that the award published
under sub-section (1) shall be final and shall not be called in question by any
court.”
SECTION 18- PERSONS ON WHOM SETTLEMENTS AND AWARDS ARE BINDING-
- “A settlement arrived at by agreement between the employer and workman otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceeding shall be binding on the parties to the agreement.
- Subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), an arbitration award] which has become enforceable shall be binding on the parties to the agreement who referred the dispute to arbitration.
- A settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings under this Act [or an arbitration award in a case where a notification has been issued under sub-section (3A) of section 10A] or [an award [of a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal] which has become enforceable] shall be binding on–
- all parties to the industrial dispute;
- all other parties summoned to appear in the proceedings as parties to the dispute, unless the Board, [arbitrator,] [Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal], as the case may be, records the opinion that they were so summoned without proper cause;
- where a party referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) is an employer, his heirs, successors, or assigns in respect of the establishment to which the dispute relates;
- where a party referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) is composed of workmen, all persons who were employed in the establishment or part of the establishment, as the case may be, to which the dispute relates on the date of the dispute and all persons who subsequently become employed in that establishment or part.”[v]
Before the Supreme Court judgment both the sections were binding. Under section 17, the government was bound to publish the award, and under section 18 when the disputed parties settled it will be binding upon them. The Supreme Court applied the statutory interpretation in such a way that in the present case where 2 sections were clashing with each other, even though these sections are mandatory but since the aggrieved party has just reached a settlement, which means that now there is no dispute present between them, so the publication of the award, in this case, is not necessary because no dispute settlement has been left now. The court has taken a lighted view under this case to provide welfare and has applied the Doctrine of Harmonious Construction to settle this case.
EXPLAINING
HARMONIOUS CONSTRUCTION THROUGH THIS CASE
As the name suggests, the Industrial Dispute Act, of 1947 settled the various dispute that arise in the industry. This act governs the dispute resolution system in India. If we understood the act as a whole, we will be able to see that this statute aims to resolve the dispute arising between the employer and the Workmen. So, in this case, when the disputed party has already arrived at a settlement of the dispute, which is the aim of the Act, then it is not necessary or important for the government to publish the award since no dispute is left to be settled.
CONCLUSION
So, through the judgment, we can say that there are chances of vagueness in the laws that are made by the legislature. So, a very important role is played by the principle of harmonious constructions for interpreting the statues, and this doctrine has been used in many cases. The judgments will be delivered much more easily as the disputes will be simplified by applying them. It is one of the most powerful tools which can be applied by the judiciary. Whenever there will be a conflict between two laws of a statute, then the doctrine of harmonious construction will help the judiciary, to deliver justice more harmoniously to society.
[i] HARMONIOUS AND BENEFICIAL CONSTRUCTION, http://www.legalservicesindia.com/ (last visited on May 10, 2022).
[ii] SIRSILK LIMITED THE SIRPUR PAPER MILLS LIMITED Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, https://www.the-laws.com/ (last visited on May 11, 2022).
[iii] Sirsilk Limited and Others v/s Government of Andhra Pradesh and Another, https://www.lawyerservices.in/ (last visited on May 13, 2022).
[iv] SIRSILK LTD. V. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AIR 1964 SC 160, https://www.lawcolumn.in/ (last visited on May 13, 2022).
[v] The Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947)
About the Author: This Case Brief is prepared by Disha Negi, law student at Delhi Metropolitan Education. She can be reached at dishanegi05@gmail.com
MyLawman is now on Telegram (t.me/mylawman) Follow us for regular legal updates. Follow us on Google News, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook & Twitter or join our whats app group .You can also subscribe for our Newsletter for Email Updates.
0 Comments