A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The matter concerns the scope of a Tribunal’s powers under Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 when adjudicating complaints of contravention of Section 33 during the pendency of industrial proceedings. The respondent, an employee in the appellant company’s ration shop, challenged his retrenchment following the closure of the ration shop, alleging both non-compliance with the principle of “last come, first go” and victimisation for union activities. The Industrial Tribunal upheld the retrenchment, but on appeal, the Labour Appellate Tribunal found the retrenchment to have violated the seniority principle and ordered reinstatement. The Supreme Court granted special leave restricted to whether reinstatement could be ordered in proceedings under Section 33A. The Court held that a complaint under Section 33A is equivalent to a reference under Section 10, granting the Tribunal full authority to award reinstatement if warranted. Thus, the reinstatement order was valid. This decision reinforces the remedial scope of Section 33A, confirming that it is not merely procedural but carries substantive adjudicatory powers equal to Section 10 references, enabling complete relief including reinstatement.

Keywords: Industrial Disputes Act 1947, Section 33A, Section 10, reinstatement, last come first go, retrenchment, victimisation, Labour Appellate Tribunal.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title: Messrs. Kamarhatty Co. Ltd. v. Shri Ushnath Pakrashi

ii) Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 310 of 1954

iii) Judgement Date: 21 May 1959

iv) Court: Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum: B.P. Sinha, P.B. Gajendragadkar, K.N. Wanchoo JJ.

vi) Author: Justice K.N. Wanchoo

vii) Citation: 1960 (1) SCR 473

viii) Legal Provisions Involved:

• Section 33, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

• Section 33A, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

• Section 10, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

ix) Judgments overruled by the Case: None expressly overruled.

x) Law Subjects: Labour Law, Industrial Law, Procedural Law.

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The judgment addresses an important procedural and substantive intersection under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It deals with the ambit of Section 33A, introduced to provide employees with an independent remedy against employers who act in violation of Section 33 during the pendency of industrial disputes. Section 33 prevents employers from altering service conditions or taking punitive action without prior Tribunal permission during ongoing adjudication. Section 33A enables workers to file complaints for such contraventions without waiting for a union or the Government to make a reference. The present case revolves around whether relief under Section 33A is restricted to declaratory orders or whether it extends to substantive relief like reinstatement. The dispute arose during adjudication between jute mills and employees in West Bengal, where the closure of a ration shop led to the lay-off and eventual retrenchment of the respondent. The litigation escalated to the Supreme Court with a narrow but significant question—whether reinstatement is permissible under a Section 33A complaint.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The appellant, Messrs. Kamarhatty Co. Ltd., operated a jute mill and maintained a ration shop for its employees. In July 1954, rationing of foodstuffs was abolished, leading to closure of the shop from 10 July 1954. Consequently, the staff became surplus, and nine employees, including the respondent Shri Ushnath Pakrashi, were selected for retrenchment based on the principle of “last come, first go”. The appellant sought permission under Section 33 from the Industrial Tribunal to retrench these employees. Before this application, the respondent filed a complaint under Section 33A, asserting that:

1. No genuine necessity existed for retrenchment due to shop closure.

2. He had longer service tenure than others retained, violating the “last come, first go” rule.

3. His removal was motivated by his active trade union role, amounting to victimisation.
   The respondent sought wages and amenities from the lay-off date and reinstatement. The Industrial Tribunal found the lay-off justified, upheld the retrenchment, and granted the employer permission under Section 33. On appeal, the Labour Appellate Tribunal found violation of the seniority principle, refused permission to retrench, set aside the termination, and ordered reinstatement with continuity of service. The appellant obtained special leave from the Supreme Court on the limited question of whether such reinstatement could be ordered under Section 33A proceedings.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether a Tribunal adjudicating a complaint under Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act has the jurisdiction to order reinstatement of a workman.

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i. Counsel argued that Section 33A proceedings are merely to adjudicate whether there was a contravention of Section 33, and any relief must be limited to declarations, without power to order reinstatement.
ii. It was further contended that the case did not involve dismissal or discharge but lay-off, and hence reinstatement was inappropriate in the given facts.
iii. The appellant stressed the distinction between proceedings under Section 10 and Section 33A, claiming the latter was procedural in nature and should not be equated with a full reference under Section 10 for purposes of relief.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i. Counsel for the respondent maintained that Section 33A expressly directs the Tribunal to adjudicate the complaint as if it were a dispute referred under Section 10, thereby granting full powers to award complete relief, including reinstatement.
ii. It was argued that the retrenchment was a veiled act of victimisation due to the respondent’s trade union activities, which is prohibited under Section 33.
iii. The respondent asserted that the “last come, first go” principle was violated, as he had longer service than others retained, making reinstatement the most appropriate remedy.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i. Section 33, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Restricts employers from altering service conditions or punishing workmen without Tribunal permission during pendency of disputes.
ii. Section 33A, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Enables aggrieved employees to complain directly to the Tribunal regarding contraventions of Section 33, with a mandate for the Tribunal to adjudicate the matter as if referred under Section 10.
iii. Section 10, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Governs reference of industrial disputes to Boards, Courts, or Tribunals for adjudication.

I) JUDGEMENT

a. Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that a complaint under Section 33A is to be adjudicated as if it were a reference under Section 10. This statutory language confers on the Tribunal the same powers in Section 33A proceedings as in Section 10 disputes, including the power to grant reinstatement when appropriate. Since the complaint in this case involved allegations of illegal dismissal or discharge in breach of Section 33, reinstatement was within the Tribunal’s competence.

b. Obiter Dicta

The Court did not address whether the matter constituted a lay-off rather than a dismissal, as special leave was confined to the reinstatement power question.

c. Guidelines

• Section 33A proceedings are substantive and not merely procedural.

• Relief under Section 33A can match that available under a Section 10 reference.

• Tribunals may grant reinstatement if dismissal or discharge is found to be in breach of Section 33.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment significantly clarifies the remedial ambit of Section 33A, ensuring that workers can obtain full substantive relief without procedural delays. It strengthens the statutory mechanism for protecting employees from victimisation during industrial adjudication and underscores judicial support for upholding fairness principles like “last come, first go”. The decision aligns with the pro-labour interpretative approach of the Supreme Court in industrial law matters.

K) REFERENCES

1. Messrs. Kamarhatty Co. Ltd. v. Shri Ushnath Pakrashi, 1960 (1) SCR 473.

2. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Sections 10, 33, 33A.

3. Relevant labour law principles on retrenchment and victimisation.