P. Chennakesav Reddi. C.J.
1. The question that arises in this writ petition is whether the State of Assam or the State of Meghalaya had jurisdiction to make a reference u/s 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') on 15.10.73 in respect of the dispute that arose between the Management of the Assam State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as ''the Board'') and the workman, represented by the Assam State Electricity Workers'' Union, in respect of the claim of the workman Shri Hari Nandan Bhattacharjee for absorption in the establishment of the Chairman of the Board and also for fixation of his seniority.
2. The Government of Assam by Notification No. PDEL.60/58, dated 27.5.58, constituted the Assam State Electricity Board and the said Board had jurisdiction over the entire territory then comprised within the State of Assam, including the present State of Meghalaya. By the North-Eastern Areas (Re-organisation) Act, 1971, which came into force from 30.12.71, the State of Meghalaya along with the other sister States of Manipur and Tripura came into being with effect from the appointed day, namely, 21.1.1972. The Government of Meghalaya constituted its own Board on 21st December, 1974 and the State of Assam constituted the new Assam Board by Notification dated 20th of January, 1975. Till the new Board of Meghalaya was constituted on 21st December, 1974, there was a composite Board for both the States of Assam and Meghalaya.
3. It appears even in 1966 the present dispute was raised by the Assam State Electricity Board Workers'' Union relating to the promotional avenues on the basis of seniority in the office of the Chairman of the Board. The case of the workman concerned in this dispute was sponsored by this Union in 1970 for promotion. The workman was, however, promoted as Assistant Superintendent in the Office of the Chief Engineer on 23.3.72, but this did not fulfil the demands of the Union as the demand of the workman as well as the Union was that the workman should be promoted to the post of Assistant Superintendent in the office of the Board.
4. After the conciliation proceedings became infructuous, the Governor of Assam in exercise of the powers conferred on him by Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Act referred the said dispute to the Industrial Tribunal, Gauhati by Notification dated 15th October, 1973. Before the Industrial Tribunal, the Board took up a preliminary objection against the validity of the reference, firstly, on the ground that the appropriate Government to make the reference was the Central Government and not the State Government of Assam and, therefore, the reference made by the State Government of Assam was incompetent, and secondly, since the establishment of the Board''s Chairman was situated at Shillong in the State of Meghalaya, the appropriate Government is the State Government of Meghalaya relating to the dispute and not the State Government of Assam. The Industrial Tribunal held that since the Board is an electric supply undertaking, the dispute does not concern any of the industries mentioned in Section 2(a)(i) of the Act and as such the Central Government would not be the appropriate Government to make the reference. On the second question, the Tribunal held that the dispute arose in 1970 at Shillong which was at that time within the State of Assam and as such, the Government of Assam alone had the jurisdiction to make the reference. Consequently, the Tribunal overruled the preliminary objection that Assam Government was incompetent to make the reference u/s 10(1)(d) of the Act.
5. In this writ petition the focus of controversy mainly centered round the question whether the State of Assam or the State of Meghalaya had jurisdiction to make the reference u/s 10(1)(d) of the Act. Strong reloance is placed by the learned counsel for the Petitioner on the dispute itself referred by the notification to the Tribunal, which reads as follows:
1. Whether the claims of Shri H.N. Bhattacharjee for his absorption in the establishment of the Chairman of the Board in his present capacity as Assistant Superintendent from the date he was promoted and fixation of seniority as such in the said establishment for the purpose of future promotion are justified.
2. If not, is he entitled to any other relief in lieu thereof?
6. It is the submission of the learned Counsel that the workman was promoted on 23.3.72 to the post of Assistant Superintendent in the office of the Chief Engineer and, therefore, the cause of action arose only on 23.3.72 by which date the State of Meghalaya had come into being and the office of the Assam State Electricity Board was functioning from Shillong located within the State of Meghalaya and so the Government of Meghalaya alone could make the reference. We find it difficult to accept the contention of the learned Counsel that the dispute arose only on 23.3.72. The Industrial Tribunal held on an effective evaluation of the entire evidence in the case that the dispute between the parties arose in 1970 and at that time Shillong was within the State of Assam.
7. We have gone through the order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has given very cogent and convincing reasons in support of its conclusion. It is clear from the order that the Workers'' Union had taken up the cause of the workman and other employees of the Board who were denied promotion in 1970 itself and requested the Chairman of the Board to give due consideration to their cases of promotion. Ultimately, the workman was promoted on 23.3.72 as Assistant Superintendent. We see absolutely no fault in the logic or the correctness in the conclusion of the Tribunal to interfere with this finding of fact. Since the dispute in question arose in 1970 at Shillong which was within the State of Assam at the time, the Government of Assam had jurisdiction to make the reference. Even if it is conceded that the dispute arose on 23.3.72 after the creation of the State of Meghalaya, it must be borne in mind that the Government of Meghalaya constituted its own Board only on 21st December, 1974. Till 21st December, 1974, there was a composite Board for both the States of Assam and Meghalaya constituted by the Government of Assam in the year 1958. There is no dispute that the activities of the Board throughout were substantially carried on within the State of Assam. Therefore, it is not possible to hold that the reference made by the Government of Assam was without jurisdiction.
8. The Supreme Court bad occasion to consider the question as to which of the State Government had jurisdiction to make a reference when a concern had establishments in more than one States. In
...The point in controversy is as to which of the States has jurisdiction to do so. The Act contains no provisions bearing on this question, which must, consequently, be decided on the principles governing the jurisdiction of Courts to entertain actions or proceedings. Dealing with a similar question under the provisions of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, Chagla, C.J., observed in Lalbhai Tricumlal Mills Ltd. v. Vin and Ors. (1956) L.L.J. 557, 558):
But what we are concerned with to decide is: where did the dispute substantially arise? Now the Act does, not deal with the cause of action, nor does it indicate what factors will confer jurisdiction upon the labour Court. But applying the well-known tests of jurisdiction, a Court or tribunal would have jurisdiction if the parties reside within jurisdiction or if the subject-matter of the dispute substantially arises within jurisdiction.
9. In our opinion, these principles are applicable for deciding which of the States has jurisdiction to make a reference u/s 10 of the Act.
10. The same view was echoed by the Supreme Court in
...there would clearly be some nexus between the dispute and the territory of the State and not necessarily between the territory of the State and the industry concerning which the dispute arose.
Undisputedly, the dispute in this case arose between the Assam State Electricity Board and its workmen. The Meghalaya State Electricity Board was only constituted on 21st December, 1974. The workmen in respect of whom the dispute arose continues to serve in the Assam State Electricity Board even after the constitution of the new Board of Meghalaya. We are, therefore, clearly of the opinion that the State Government of Assam alone had jurisdiction to make the reference.
11. There is another compelling circumstance that drives us to the conclusion that the Petitioner in this writ petition is not entitled to any relief. The grievance of the workmen is that he should be appointed and promoted as Assistant Superintendent in the establishment of the Chairman of the Assam State Electricity Board from the date he was promoted as Assistant Superintendent in the Office of the Chief Engineer of Board. His grievance is not that he should be appointed as Assistant Superintendent in the newly constituted Meghalaya Board. After the constitution of the separate Board of Meghalaya, the workman opted to serve in the Assam Board, Therefore, the Assam Government alone is competent to make the reference even as on today. We are, therefore, positively of the opinion that substantial justice has been done in this case and no prejudice whatsoever had been occasioned to the Assam State Electricity Board by the reference.
12. It is well-settled that this Court will not permit a party to successfully invoke the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution on purely technical pleas when substantial justice has been done in the case between the parties (vide, The Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. v. Shri G.K. Patankar and Anr. (1976) I SCC 810.)
13. In the result, the Civil Rule fails and, accordingly, it is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. The Tribunal is directed to dispose of the case expeditiously.
