AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the award of the labour Court, Madras, I.D.No.335
of 1994. The opposite party in the petition is the revision petitioner.
The first respondent herein was employed a Watchman by the revision petitioner, the Bay of Bengal Programme being a unit of the Food and
Agriculture Organisation (FAG.) of the United Nations In I.D No.335of 1994 filed u/s 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, he contended that be
was terminated from service with effect from 10.2.1993 without any prior notice or just cause and sought for reinstatement with all attendant
benefits. It is not necessary to go into the merits of his allegation having regard to the scope of this revision petition. He impleaded the Organisation
as the first respondent and Mr.L.O. Engvall who is the Programme Director as the second respondent The respondent however, remained absent
and an award was passed ex parte on 3.6.1996 as prayed for. As the award was not complied with, employee filed C.P.No. 85 of 1997 u/s
33(C)(2) of the Act praying for computing his entitlement and terminal benefits. The respondents however, continued to remain absent and
consequently the petition was allowed ex parte on 29.9.1997 for a sum of Rs. 1,07,020. As no payment was forthcoming, the Tahsildar,
Mylapore-Triplicane Taluk by his letter dated 7.7.1999 called upon the revision petitioner to pay the said amount, failing which the provisions of
Revenue Recovery Act would be invoked. Hence, the present petition challenging the award in LA.No.335 of 1994.
The revision petition has now been filed by the Bay of Bengal Programme represented by the Union of India, the Ministry of Agriculture. The
only point which is raised for consideration is that the Organisation being a Unit of F.A.O., an Organisation of the United Nations, it enjoys
complete immunity as provided under United Nations (Privileges and Immunities) Act, 1947 (hereinafter called ""the Act"")
According to the revision petitioner, the petitioner/Organisation (F.A.O.) had been duly notified by order dated 21.2.1950 and published in the
Official Gazette dated 25.2.1950 u/s 3 of the Act declaring that the Act shall apply to all the Organisation specified in the notification, the petitioner
Organisation being one of them. Hence, the Organisation as well as its officials enjoy immunity from all legal process and hence the Labour Court
has no jurisdiction at all to pass the award.
Though learned counsel for the respondent does not seriously dispute the fact of the revision petitioner being an organisation of the United
Nations and also the statement of the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the notification of the organisation under the Act, he however
contends that the revision petitioner was not entitled to raise such points before this Court after having allowed an award to be parsed by a
competent Court. Then is no error of jurisdiction in the Tribunal having passed the award and hence, Article 227 of the Constitution of India,
cannot be invoked. If there was any justification to challenge the award, the revision petitioner should have approached the Tribunal itself to set
aside the ex parte award. He would also submit that this Court will not go into the merits of the dispute and relied on the judgment of this court in
Workmen v. Management of India Forrge and Drop Stampings, 89 F.J.R. 141, He also relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in
Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde and Others Vs. Millikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale, in support of his contention that under Article 227, the High
Court cannot assume appellate powers to correct every mistake of law.
The grounds of defence taken by learned counsel for the respondent/employee do not really answer the points raised in this revision petition,
namely, the alleged immunity enjoyed by the petitioner/ Organisation. If the claim of immunity is available then undoubtedly the issue goes to the
root of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain any such petition against a party enjoying immunity against enforceability of any order or award
to be passed against such a party. Such an award would be null and void. Therefore, the above revision petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India is definitely maintainable.
The fact that the Organisation had been duly notified under the Act is not disputed. Section 3 of the Act makes it clear that if in pursuance of any
International agreement, convention etc., the Central Government notifies declaring that the provisions of the Act shall apply in favour of the
Organisation, its representatives and officers the provisions of the Act shall apply notwithstanding anything contrary in any] other law. u/s 2 of
Article II of the Schedule, the United Nations, it properly and assets wherever located and whomsoever held, shall enjoy immunity from every
form of legal process. u/s 3 such property shall also be immune from search requisition, confiscation expropriation and any other form of
interference, whether by executive administrative, judicial or legislative action. In the claim petition, admittedly, the respondent herein, chose to
implead only those parties as respondents who are without doubt, conferred with the immunity as against any legal process. The sweep of immunity
is very positively and emphatically incorporated in the Act and is probably a very rare example of prohibition even as against legislative action. In
other words, the Parliament itself has enacted a self-imposed restriction on itself in the interest of maintaining proper International relations and the
sanctity of International Treaties and Agreements and to place the United Nations and their Organisation beyond the legal process. When that be
so, undoubtedly, the claim petition as framed by the respondent herein is not maintainable. The Labour Court has absolutely no jurisdiction to
entertain the claim petition.
But the simultaneous question which arises for consideration of the judicial conscience is as to whether an aggrieved citizen is to be left and
should be left without any remedy. The facts of the present case may or may not warrant allowing the claim on merits. But the proposition of law to
be laid down in this case ought not to result in depriving any aggrieved person who has otherwise, a sustainable claim. Any worker who had
worked for a period is entitled to receive the wages for the work done by him, which may be denied to him. The termination of the service of
another worker may be totally unjustified and also in clear violation of the agreement between himself and his employer. It would be unjust to leave
them without any remedy. Enforcement of human rights is as much important as protecting the immunity of International Organisations and their
officials. Article 43 of the Constitution of India reflects the policy of the State to assure proper wages and proper conditions for any worker. Life
and personal liberty ""guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has always been interpreted as including the right to receive proper
wages. Even in the case of suspended employees, they are entitled to receive subsistence allowance. Even ignoring our constitutional directions, the
following Articles (8,10,23) of the Universal Declaration of human rights which are as follows, emphasize the importance of a worker to receive
wages for his work, for proper conditions of work and to have legal remedy. The declaration is applicable to all member-countries of the United
Nations.
Article 8. Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by
the Constitution or by Law.
Article 10. Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights
and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
Article 23. (1) Everyone has the right, to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against
unemployment.
(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity,
and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests."" (Italics supplied).
Therefore, this Court has to device a method by which the said human rights are effectively enforced. It must be remembered that all the welfare
measures which are undertaken by various United Nations Organisation, like F.A.O., UNICEF, International Labour Organisation, World Health
Organisation, etc. are, in fact, the basic obligations of the State or sovereignty of the individual state. By virtue of treaties and agreements, these
International Organisations are entrusted with various developmental and welfare works which are otherwise executable by the respective
Governments of each country. The respective Governments are under a duty to carry out such works. While executing such welfare measures,
these International Organisations are in fact and actually discharging only the obligations of the respective Governments and thus the said
Organisation are no more or less than agents of the respective Governments. In fact, the very Bay of Bengal Programme with which we are now
concerned is a ""Project focused on small-scale coastal fisherfolk communities of the Bay of Bengal."" A perusal of the project summary discloses
that the said communities suffered from lack of infrastructure and that the ultimate objective of the project was the development of coastal
communities. The following passage in the project summary is also very relevant:-
All activities of the project will be implemented through the national institutions in the respective countries responsible for fisheries management
and related subjects. The project will therefore be closely coordinated with, and supplementary to, any ongoing national efforts. The national staff
provided by the participating governments will be a major input to the project.
A more relevant feature of the project is paragraph No.8 of the project agreement, dealing with Government''s obligations which is as follows:-
The Governments shall deal with any claim brought by third parties against FAO; its personnel or other persons performing services on its behalf
in connection with the project, except, when it is agreed by FAO and the Governments that such claims arise from gross negligence or wilful
misconduct of such persons.
The above extract clinches the issue by fixing the liability or answerability on the respective Governments. In fact, as I have already pointed
out, even without such a specific term of agreement, the Government will be responsible having regard to the simple fact that these International
Organisation are only discharging the duties and obligations of the Government and hence the Government would be liable for any claims which
may arise within the works carried on by the International Organisations.
Therefore, I am inclined to hold that even though agreements may be entered into with the International Organisations by the individual
employees, and such Organisations do enjoy immunity against any legal action, it is the Government which is answerable to such claims against the
Organisations. The claimant in this case, would have been well advised to implead the Central Government in the main I.D. petition itself. Not
having done so, he has to suffer the consequences of the inevitable delay and further delay. The petition as framed by the claimant is certainly not
maintainable. However, it is now seen that the Central Government had come into picture on its own, no doubt, as representing the Bay of Bengal
Programme and the Central Government had come on record only to raise the defence of immunity on behalf of the Organisations. I have already
held that the Government is answerable to all the claims against the Organisations. Therefore, in the interest of justice, it is not necessary to undergo
the formality of impleading the Central Government, in I.D.No.335 of 1984 Consequently, the Central Government shall stand impleaded in this
proceeding as the opposite party.
Considering that there has been no adjudication on the mutual contentions on merits and only an ex parte order had been passed, it would be
proper to remit the I.D.No.335 of 1984 to the file of the Labour Court-I, Madras. The Union of India, by its Ministry of Agriculture Department
of Animal Husbandry and Dairying, Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi, (revision petitioner) shall stand impleaded as the opposite party. The Labour Court
is directed to give opportunity to the opposite party to file their pleading and also permit both the parties to adduce evidence in support of their
mutual contentions. The Labour Court will consider the merits of the case independently without being influenced by any of the observations
contained in this order. I have not considered the merits of the issues relating to the dispute between the parties and it is up to the Labour Court to
deal with the same in accordance with facts of law. The parties shall appear before the Labour Court on 11.12.2000 and the Labour Court is
directed to dispose of the petition filed under the Industrial Disputes Act, within three months thereafter.
In the result, the revision petition is allowed and remanded subject to the above observations. No costs.