Case Summary
| Citation | The Remington Rand of India Ltd. v. The Workmen (1968) 1 SCR 164: AIR 1968 SC 224 |
| Keywords | harmonious rule of interpretation |
| Facts | On October 5, 1965, an Industrial Tribunal in Alleppey issued an award. The appropriate government, Kerala, received this award; however, it was published in the Kerala Gazette on November 15, 1966. This publication occurred beyond the 30-day period required by Section 17(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The appellant, Remington Rand of India Ltd., challenged the validity of the award, arguing that its publication beyond the statutory time limit rendered it ineffective. They referenced the wording of Section 17(1), which states that the award “shall, within a period of thirty days from the date of its receipt…be published.” |
| Issues | Whether the time limit of 30 days prescribed in Section 17(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act for the publication of an award by the appropriate government was mandatory or directory? If it was mandatory, the delayed publication would render the award invalid? |
| Contentions | |
| Law Points | The court stated that the primary objective of the Industrial Disputes Act is to promote industrial peace and resolve disputes between employers and employees. Invalidating an award solely due to delayed publication, even when the delay is not caused by the employees, would undermine this objective. If the time limit for publication were deemed mandatory, even a minor delay for reasons beyond the parties’ control could render the entire adjudication process pointless, which would be harmful to industrial peace. The Act does not impose any penalties on the government for failing to publish the award within the stipulated 30 days. The absence of such a penal provision indicates that the time limit is intended to be directory rather than mandatory. The appellant referred to the case of Sirsilk Ltd. v. Government of Andhra Pradesh [AIR 1964 SC 448], where the Court noted that the government’s duty to publish the award within 30 days was mandatory. However, in the case of Remington Rand, the Court clarified that while the duty to publish is indeed mandatory, the time limit for publication is directory. The observation in Sirsilk Ltd. was made regarding a settlement reached between the parties before the award was published, and the Court determined that in such exceptional cases, the government could withhold publication to honor the settlement. The Court emphasized the importance of interpreting the various provisions of the Act harmoniously to further its purpose. Treating the time limit as mandatory would lead to unnecessary technicalities and frustrate the goal of adjudication. |
| Judgement | The Supreme Court held that the provision in Section 17(1) regarding the time limit of 30 days for the publication of the award is directory, and not mandatory. Therefore, the delayed publication of the award in this case did not invalidate it. |
| Ratio Decidendi & Case Authority |
Full Case Details
G.K. MITTER, J. – 2. The first point taken against this award is that it cannot be given effect to as it was published beyond the period fixed in the Act. The notification accompanying the gazette publication stated that Government had received the award on 14th October, 1966. It was argued by Mr Gokhale that in terms of Section 17(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act the award had to be published “within a period of thirty days from the date of its receipt by the appropriate Government”. According to learned counsel, the award having reached Government on 14th October, 1966 it should have been published at the latest on 12th November, 1966 as Section 17(1) of the Act was mandatory. Our attention was also drawn to sub-section (2) of Section 17 according to which it is only the award published under sub- section (1) of Section 17 that is final and cannot be called in question by any court in any manner. We were also referred to Section 17-A and Section 19. Under sub-section (1) of Section 17-A an award becomes enforceable on the expiry of thirty days from the date of its publication under Section 17 and under sub-section (3) of Section 19 an award is to remain in operation for a period of one year from the date on which the award becomes enforceable under Section 17- A. From all these provisions it was argued that the limits of time mentioned in the sections were mandatory and not directory and if an award was published beyond the period of thirty days, in contravention of Section 17(1) it could not be given effect to.
Keeping the above principles in mind, we cannot but hold that a provision as to time in Section 17(1) is merely directory and not mandatory. Section 17(1) makes it obligatory on the Government to publish the award. The limit of time has been fixed as showing that the publication of the award ought not to be held up. But the fixation of the period of 30 days mentioned therein does not mean that the publication beyond that time will render the award invalid. It is not difficult to think of circumstances when the publication of the award within thirty days may not be possible. For instance, there may be a strike in the press or there may be any other good and sufficient cause by reason of which the publication could not be made within thirty days. If we were to hold that the award would therefore be rendered invalid, it would be attaching undue importance to a provision not in the mind of the legislature. It is well known that it very often takes a long period of time for the reference to be concluded and the award to be made. If the award becomes invalid merely on the ground of publication after thirty days, it might entail a fresh reference with needless harassment to the parties. The non-publication of the award within the period of thirty days does not entail any penalty and this is another consideration which has to be kept in mind. What was said in Sirsilk Ltd. v. Government of Andhra Pradesh merely shows that it was not open to Government to withhold publication but this Court never meant to lay down that the period of time fixed for publication was mandatory.
