A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE
The Supreme Court of India in M/s. U.P. Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. Workmen of M/s. S.N. Choudhary & Anr., AIR 1960 SC 1178, dealt with the crucial jurisdictional question regarding the powers of an Industrial Tribunal under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The primary issue was whether the Tribunal could adjudicate on matters not expressly referred by the Government, particularly the determination of employer-employee relationship. The workmen had raised four disputes including the abolition of the contract system, but the Government referred only three. The Tribunal, however, delved into the fourth—whether the workers were actually employees of the appellant company. The apex court ruled that such adjudication exceeded the Tribunal’s jurisdiction since the reference order never included this point. It emphasized the sanctity and limitation of references made under statutory provisions. The judgment thus stands as a precedent in determining the jurisdictional reach of industrial adjudicatory bodies.

Keywords: Jurisdiction of Industrial Tribunal, Employer-Employee Relationship, U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, Contract Labour, Reference Scope.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title: M/s. U.P. Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. Workmen of M/s. S. N. Choudhary and Another
ii) Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 481 of 1958
iii) Judgement Date: 8 March 1960
iv) Court: Supreme Court of India
v) Quorum: Justice P.B. Gajendragadkar and Justice K.N. Wanchoo
vi) Author: Justice K.N. Wanchoo
vii) Citation: AIR 1960 SC 1178; 1960 SCR (3) 189
viii) Legal Provisions Involved: Sections 3, 4, 5, and 8 of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
ix) Judgments overruled by the Case: None
x) Case is Related to: Labour and Industrial Law

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT
This case arose from a jurisdictional challenge against the Industrial Tribunal’s determination that workers employed by a contractor were, in fact, employees of the principal employer—U.P. Electric Supply Co. Ltd.. The origin lay in an industrial dispute where contract labourers sought parity with the company’s permanent employees. The Tribunal, though only referred three specific issues, pronounced on an unreferenced matter—the abolition of contract labour and determination of direct employment. This prompted the company’s appeal, challenging the legality of the Tribunal’s overreach. This judgment examines the statutory framework of industrial dispute adjudication and reinforces procedural rigour as essential for maintaining fairness and certainty in industrial jurisprudence.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE
The appellant, U.P. Electric Supply Co. Ltd., engaged M/s. S.N. Choudhary as contractors for executing specific works. These contractors, in turn, employed workmen. A dispute arose in 1956 between the contractors and their workmen over four issues: (i) non-payment of bonuses for 1953-54 and 1954-55; (ii) denial of festival holidays; (iii) wage parity with company workers; and (iv) demand for abolition of the contract system. These were submitted to the conciliation board under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. As conciliation failed, the Government referred only three of the four disputes (excluding the abolition demand) to the Industrial Tribunal. Initially, the company was not a party to the reference. However, by a subsequent notification under Sections 3, 5, and 8, the Government impleaded the company but did not amend the reference to include the fourth issue. The Tribunal, nevertheless, proceeded to adjudicate the employer-employee relationship and ruled that the contract labourers were employees of the company. This prompted the present appeal by the company.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED
i. Whether the Industrial Tribunal had jurisdiction to decide matters not explicitly referred under the notification by the Government, particularly regarding the abolition of the contract system and determination of the real employer.

F) PETITIONER/ APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS
i. The counsels for the Petitioner/Appellant submitted that the reference made under Section 4 of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act did not include the abolition of the contract system or the issue of employer-employee relationship. Hence, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate on those matters[1].

They argued that under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, a Tribunal can only adjudicate upon matters expressly referred. Relying on State of Madras v. C.P. Sarathy AIR 1953 SC 53, it was argued that the Tribunal’s jurisdiction was confined to the scope of the reference and it could not suo moto assume adjudicatory authority over unreferenced disputes[2].

It was contended that although the Government impleaded the appellant by a subsequent notification under Sections 3, 5, and 8, the original reference remained unaltered, and no amendment was made to include the fourth issue. Therefore, the finding that the workers were employees of the company was illegal and void ab initio[3].

The counsel emphasized that even if the contract labourers were functionally integrated with company operations, without a reference on the point, the Tribunal could not adjudicate the real nature of employment[4].

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS
i. The counsels for the Respondent submitted that although the issue of abolition of the contract system was not explicitly mentioned, it was implied in the reference regarding wage parity. They claimed that the issue of employer-employee relationship was fundamental to resolving the main disputes[5].

The respondents argued that the Tribunal possessed implied powers to determine incidental questions necessary for the complete adjudication of the referred matters. They relied on B.N. Railway v. Their Workmen, AIR 1957 SC 217, to argue that the Tribunal had ancillary jurisdiction over intertwined issues[6].

Further, they contended that the company’s operational control and supervision over the contract labourers established a de facto employment relationship, which the Tribunal rightly recognized. The Tribunal, they argued, was within its rights to lift the veil of contractual delegation and ascertain the real employer[7].

They also cited Standard Vacuum Refining Co. v. Their Workmen, AIR 1961 SC 895, where the Supreme Court held that industrial adjudicators can go into the true nature of employment relationships in interest of justice[8].

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i. Section 4 of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Lays down the reference of disputes to the Tribunal.
ii. Section 5 and 8: Allow inclusion of parties and procedural modifications.
iii. Proviso to Section 4: Permits amendment of reference, but was not invoked here.
iv. Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Pari materia): Limits jurisdiction to matters referred.

I) JUDGEMENT

a. RATIO DECIDENDI
i. The Supreme Court ruled that the Industrial Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by adjudicating a matter not referred to it. The issue of determining whether the contract labourers were employees of the company was not part of the reference under Section 4. The Tribunal’s act of framing and deciding this issue independently rendered the decision ultra vires[9].

The Court held that without a proper amendment of the reference by the State Government, the Tribunal could not have assumed authority over the employer-employee relationship issue. Hence, its entire award was without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.

The Court emphasized that statutory bodies must operate strictly within the legal confines of reference, and any deviation results in invalidity, regardless of the merits.

b. OBITER DICTA 
i. The Court opined that even if the Government legally impleaded the company, it should have simultaneously amended the scope of reference. Merely impleading a party does not extend the scope of adjudication automatically. The procedural irregularity nullified the award[10].

c. GUIDELINES 

• Industrial Tribunals can adjudicate only matters specifically referred by competent authority.

• Ancillary or incidental issues must be within the scope of the original or amended reference.

• Mere impleading of a party without proper reference does not confer jurisdiction.

• Jurisdiction cannot be conferred by acquiescence or inference; it must be explicitly legislated.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred
i. State of Madras v. C.P. Sarathy, AIR 1953 SC 53
ii. B.N. Railway v. Their Workmen, AIR 1957 SC 217
iii. Standard Vacuum Refining Co. v. Their Workmen, AIR 1961 SC 895

b. Important Statutes Referred
i. U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Sections 3, 4, 5, 8
ii. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 10