Whether Industrial tribunal can mould relief or grant relief which a party is entitled to in equity and justice?

 It is one thing to say that the court interprets a provision of a statute and lays down a law, but it is
another thing to say that the courts although exercise plenary jurisdiction will have no discretionary power
at all in the matter of moulding the relief or otherwise give any such reliefs, as the parties may be found to
be entitled to in equity and justice. If that be so, the court's function as court of justice would be totally
impaired. Discretionary jurisdiction in a court need not be conferred always by a statute.
 Order VII, Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure confers power upon the court to mould relief in a
given situation. The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are applicable to the proceedings under the
Industrial Disputes Act. Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act empowers the Labour Court, Tribunal
and National Tribunal to give appropriate relief in case of discharge or dismissal of workmen.
Equivalent Citation: AIR2006SC586, 2006(1)AWC667(SC), [2006(108)FLR201], JT2005(10)SC344, (2006)ILLJ496SC,
(2006)1SCC479, 2006(2)SLJ327(SC)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Civil Appeal No. 7304 of 2005 [Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 14945 of 2004]
Decided On: 08.12.2005
Appellants: U.P. State Brassware Corpn. Ltd. and Anr.
Vs.
Respondent: Udai Narain Pandey
Hon'ble Judges: S.B. Sinha and P.K. Balasubramanyan, JJ.

Print Page

Whether caveat can be filed before Industrial or Labour Court or Authority dealing with judicial or quasi judicial function?

 The parties to the proceedings have a right to appear before the authority either on receiving notice or summons. As a sound judicial practice any order normally is to be passed after hearing both the parties In the exceptional circumstances, when there has been no sufficient time to serve the other side and the danger apprehended or complained of is eminent, the Court exercises a power by passing ex parte order. However, when the opposite party himself voluntarily offers to appear, there could not be any impediment-legal or otherwise-to prohibit his appearance. The procedure of caveat though codified, and incorporated by recent amendment, it is an evolution of sound judicial; practice. It would be always expedient to pass the interlocutory order after hearing the opponent. Such interim order normally entails a civil consequence which are sometimes substantial in nature. Refusing the opponent from putting his appearance on his own, would not in any manner further the cause of justice Occasionally, and as the experience goes, it tends to defeat the course of justice. In view of this, irrespective of the applicability of Section 148-A of the Civil Procedure Code as a just and fair practice, the filing of appearance may be in the form of caveat, cannot be discouraged by the Industrial or Labour Court or nay Authority dealing with judicial or quasi judicial function. The similar view is expressed by a Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in a case, reported in Chandrajit v. Ganeshya .

Bombay High Court

Mahadeo Sitaramji Band vs Maharashtra State Road Transport ... on 28 August, 1991

Equivalent citations: (1991) 93 BOMLR 963,1992(1) MHLJ 31

A.A. Desai, J.

Print Page