Industrial Tribunal and National Tribunal under Industrial

Disputes Act

By Pallavi Satarkar
FYLLM

1
 Industrial tribunal
In our country the Industrial Tribunals were for the first time created by the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947
Section 7-A of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947, defines Industrial Tribunals as
machinery for adjudication of industrial disputes.
The power to constitute Industrial Tribunal is conferred upon the appropriate
Government. The appointment of an industrial tribunal together with the names of person
constituting the tribunal shall be notified in the official Gazette.
Further, one or more than one tribunals may in the discretion of appropriate
Government, be constituted. It is the duty of the tribunals to adjudicate upon any
industrial dispute relating to any matter, whether specified in the Second Schedule or the
Third Schedule. These tribunals shall perform such other functions as may be assigned
to them under this act.
Industrial Tribunal also means a machinery of settlement of industrial disputes in relation
to other cases, where no appeal lies under any law referred to any court, board or other
authority set up in any state under such law. As a matter of fact, the word “Industrial
Tribunal” has been given a very wide connotation, covering almost all authorities for
compulsory adjudication whether primary or appellate.
The Tribunal shall consist of one person only, who shall be appointed by the state
government. Any person having one of the following qualifications may be appointed as
the presiding officer of the Industrial Tribunal, namely:-
a) If he is, or has been, a Judge of a High Court, or
aa) If he has for a period of not less than three years, been a District Judge or an
Additional District Judge.
b) He is or has been a Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) or Joint
Commissioner of the State Labour Department, having a degree in law and at
least seven years, experience in the Labour Department including three years of
experience as Conciliation Officer;
Provided that no such Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner or Joint Labour
Commissioner shall be appointed unless he resigns from the service of the
Central Government or State Government as the case may be, before being
appointed as the presiding officer; or
c) He is an officer of Indian Legal Service in Grade III with three years’ experience in
the grade.”
It is provided by section 7-A (4) that the appropriate Government, if it thinks fit, may
appoint two persons as assessors to advice the Tribunal in the proceedings before it.

2
These Tribunals are important for many practical reasons. First, only experienced
persons of high integrity can be appointed as presiding officer of the Tribunal as stated
above. Secondly, almost any important matter can be submitted for adjudication to the
tribunal including questions relating to wages, bonus, provident fund, gratuity and
dismissal, etc. Thirdly, the Tribunals enjoy unlimited powers so long as they act within
the scope of their authority.
Powers of the Industrial Tribunal
1. The Tribunal is a judicial body or at any rate a quasi-judicial body. Therefore, a
tribunal must serve notice upon the parties of the reference by name and any
award made without serving such notices is fundamentally wrong. It could make a
suitable award for bringing about harmonious relations between the employers
and workmen and can direct reinstatement of a workman if it is necessary in the
interest of industrial peace. The Tribunal while arriving at a finding in a matter
may rely on data available to it otherwise than from evidence adduced on behalf
of the parties.
2. While an application was made for quashing an award of the Industrial Tribunal,
the Supreme Court held that no writ can be issued against a Tribunal which has
ceased to exist. It is clear from the act itself that Tribunals are constituted when
an industrial dispute arises and normally functions as long as such a dispute is
not disposed of. The Tribunals can be appointed for a limited period or for
deciding a specified number of disputes. When a new Tribunal is appointed it
may start hearing of the case from the beginning, particularly when any prejudice
is likely to be caused to any party, it is open to either party to point out and
convince the Tribunal that prejudice will be caused if a de novo trials is not held.

U. P. Power Corporation Ltd. and another V. Bijli Mazdoor Sangh and Others,
In this the respondent workmen were appointed in 1977, as “chowkidar - Muster Roll”
employee on daily wage basis. They had raised dispute more than once before the
Industrial Tribunal seeking regularisation of their service besides relief against their
retrenchment. The Tribunal had held that they were deemed to be regularised after
three years of their joining in service. The High Court affirmed this order. Hence the
employer corporation preferred an appeal to the Supreme Court.
Allowing the appeal the Supreme Court observed that though the Industrial
Adjudicator, unlike a Civil Court, could vary the terms of contract of employment to
maintain industrial peace, as contended by the respondents, it would not do
something which was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, 1950. If the
3
 case was one which was covered by the concept of regularisation, same could not
be viewed differently.
There could not be a case for regularisation without their being employer-employee
relationship. Concept of regularisation was clearly linked with Article 14 of the
constitution.
Jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal
Industrial Tribunal set up under section 7A of Industrial Disputes Act 1947 and
especially after Amendment of 1956, is vested with much wider jurisdiction than
Tribunal envisaged in Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act. It should be noted;
however, that jurisdiction of a Tribunal set up under the Industrial Disputes Act 1947
is not excluded by the provisions in Section 22 (d) of the Payment of Wages Act.
The question whether an objection to jurisdiction of a Tribunal could be raised before
the Tribunal itself or it is necessary to apply to the High Court to quash the
proceedings before the Tribunal, has been considered on a number of occasion by
the courts. There can be no difficulty where the question of jurisdiction is clear from
the admitted facts. The difficulty of jurisdiction actually arises where the question of
jurisdiction is a mixed question of law and fact. In such cases the question should be
raised before tribunal itself, which shall determine the question after going into the
facts. The proceeding before the Tribunal comes to an end if it finds that it has no
jurisdiction. If in its opinion the tribunal thinks that it has jurisdiction it may proceed on
to decide the industrial dispute itself. Where a preliminary finding is given by the
Tribunal or the question of jurisdiction along with the dispute is decided by the
Tribunal the High Court in appropriate proceedings may decide whether the Tribunal
has acted with or without jurisdiction. Ordinarily the finding of fact with regard to the
jurisdiction will not be interfered with by the High Court or the Supreme Court the
finding of the Tribunal may be set aside by these courts, if it is found that the Tribunal
while interpreting the facts has misapplied any principle of law. Where the objection
as regards the jurisdiction was not raised before the Tribunal, it cannot be, for the
first time, raised before the court unless it is a pure question of law.
Mukand Ltd. v. Mukand Staff and Officers Association
In this case Supreme Court observed that the Industrial Tribunal has no jurisdiction
to adjudicate any issue relating to salaries of employees who were not workmen
under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Delay in filing appeal
Daya Ram v. Divisional Engineer (C. & M.), M.P. Electricity Board

4
 In this case there was delay of 52 days in filing of the appeal. The Industrial Court
dismissed the appeal solely on ground of delay of 52 days. The High Court also
confirmed the order of the Industrial Court. It was held by the Supreme Court that the
Industrial Court should not have dismissed the case solely on ground of delay of 52
days. The High Court also did not apply its mind to case on merit. The dispute was
raised for proper adjudication. Therefore the Supreme Court remitted the case back
to Industrial Court to decide it on merit.
Engineering Mazdoor Sabha v. Hind Cycles Ltd. [Sc, (1962) IILLJ760)
In this case three appeals have been placed for hearing together because the
respective respondents in the said appeals have raised the same preliminary
objection against their competence.
The court had to decide a preliminary objection that arbitrators appointed by the
parties were not Tribunals, and that therefore no appeal could lie under Article 136
against their awards.
The respondents contended that the Arbitrators, whose awards are challenged, are
not tribunals, whereas the appellants contended that they are.
Article 136 (1) refers to a Tribunal in contradistinction to a court. The expression “a
court in the technical sense is a tribunal constituted by the state as a part of the
ordinary hierarchy of courts which are invested with the states inherent judicial
powers.
The Tribunal as distinguished from the court exercises judicial powers and decide
matters brought before it judicially or quasi-judicially but it does not constitute a court
in the technical sense.
The Tribunal according to the dictionary meaning, is a seat of justice; and in the
discharge of its functions, it shares some of the characteristics of the court.
Bharat Bank Ltd., Delhi v. Employees of the Bharat Bank, Ltd.
[1950 1 LLJ 921]
In this case the question before the court was whether an Industrial Tribunal comes
under Article 136 (1).
The majority decisions, held that the appellate jurisdiction of this court under Article
136 can be invoked in proper cases against awards and other orders made by
Industrial Tribunals under the Act.
In discussing the question as to the character of the Industrial Tribunal functioning
under the Act, justice Mahajan, observed that the condition precedent for bringing a

5
 Tribunal within the ambit of Article 136, is that it should be constituted by the state
and he added that a Tribunal would be outside the ambit of Article 136, if it is not
invested with any part of the judicial functions of the state but discharges purely
administrative or executive duties.
In the opinion of the Learned Judge Tribunals which are found invested with certain
functions of the court of justice and have some of its trappings also would fall within
the ambit of Article 136 and would be subject to the appellate control of this court
whenever it is found necessary to exercise that control in the interest of justice.

National Tribunal
According to Section 7B of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Central Government may
by notification in the Official Gazette constitute one or more National Industrial
Tribunals for the adjudication of industrial disputes which in the opinion of the central
government involve questions of national importance or are of such a nature that
industrial establishments situated in more than one state are likely to be interested in
or affected by such disputes.
A National Tribunal shall consist of one person only to be appointed by the Central
Government called presiding officer. The Central Government may if it so thinks fit
appoint two persons as assessors to advise the National Tribunal in the proceeding
before it.
Qualification of Presiding Officer
The person to be appointed as the presiding officer of a National Tribunal must be a
Judge of High Court.
Disqualification
According to section 7(C), no person shall be appointed to, or continue in, the office
of the presiding officer of a Labour court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, if –
a) He is not an independent person; or
b) He has attained the age of sixty-five years.
Duties of national tribunals
The Duties of Tribunals under Section 15 of the said Act are as under
To hold adjudication proceeding expeditiously. The whole object of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 is to assure peace and harmony in the functioning of the industry
with a view to achieve maximum industrial productivity. With this object in view the

6
Legislature has enjoined upon the Tribunals to hold the adjudicatory proceedings
expeditiously.
M/S. India Ltd. v/s Union of India & others. on 16 May, 2011
In this case the appellant, filed writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution
of India for issue of a writ of certiorari for quashment of the order passed by the Joint
Secretary, Ministry of Labour, whereby the central Government has constituted a
National Industrial Tribunal as enshrined under section 7B of Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 and referred the dispute to the tribunal for adjudication of the dispute raised by
more than 200 shop managers of the appellant company represented by All India Bata
Shop Managers Union.
It was held that the issues involved are of national importance and hence, it is covered
by the first limb of section 7B of the Act.
The court made conclusion that there is no absolute bar for interference in exercise of
power under Article 226 of the constitution of India when a matter referred is by the
Government to an Industrial Tribunal if the reference suffers from jurisdictional error or
no industrial dispute exists.
H. C. Arora v. Union of India
In this particular case one advocate filed a petition in the Punjab and Haryana High
Court praying for quashing section 7 and 7A of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947
inasmuch as the provisions 7, 7A & 7B do not make advocates with any length of
experience at the Bar eligible to be appointed as presiding officers of the Labour courts
or Tribunals constituted by the Central Government. The petitioner argued that members
of the Bar with 7-10 years experience in the legal profession should be made eligible for
such appointment by suitable amendment in the said provisions.
The High Court disposed of the writ petition but advising the petitioner to make a
representation to the Law commission of making a recommendation for a suitable
amendment in the said provisions.
Section 8 :- Filling of vacancies.-
If, for any reason a vacancy (other than a temporary absence) occurs in the office of the
presiding officer of a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal or in the office of the
chairman or any other member of a Board or Court, then, in the case of a National
Tribunal, the Central Government and in other case, the Appropriate Government, shall
appoint another person in accordance with the provisions of this Act to fill the vacancy,
and the proceeding may be continued before the Labour Court, Tribunal, National
Tribunal, Board or Court, as the case may be, from the stage at which the vacancy is
filled.
7
Section 9:- Finality of orders constituting Boards, etc.-
(1) No order of the appropriate Government or of the Central Government appointing any
person as the chairman or any other member of a Board or Court or as the presiding
officer of a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal shall be called in question in any
manner; and no act or proceeding before any Board or Court shall be called in question
in any manner on the ground merely of the existence of any vacancy in, or defect in the
constitution of, such Board or Court.
(2) No settlement arrived at in the course of a conciliation proceeding shall be invalid by
reason only of the fact that such settlement was arrived at after the expiry of the period
referred to in sub- section (6) of section 12 or sub- section (5) of section 13, as the case
may be.
(3) Where the report of any settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceeding
before a Board is signed by the chairman and all the other members of the Board, no
such settlement shall be invalid by reason only of the casual or unforeseen absence of
any of the members (including the chairman) of the Board during any stage of the
proceeding.]

Jaganath Vinayak Kale v. M. I. Ahmedi and Others

In this case it was held that “where the Tribunal has not been duly constituted under the
Act and it was acting without jurisdiction the defect of jurisdiction would not in any way
be cured by Section 9 of the Act.”

Conclusion
The experts in the area of Labour Laws contemplated the system of adjudication through
specialist tribunals with definite objectives of providing expeditious and effective
dispensation of justice. However, the present system of appointment of non-specialist
presiding officers, who are drawn from civil judiciary is failing to achieve the above said
objective, as these judicial officers in majority of cases are neither specialized in labour
laws nor practical labour laws at any time before they became judges. Therefore, to
overcome this problem, and to provide for appointment of Specialist Presiding Officers,
there is need of Amendment of Sections 7, 7A and 7B.

8
List of Reference
I. Labour and Industrial Laws by S. N. Misra
II. Shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in
III. Indiankanoon.org.