Howrah Zila Engineering Employees'' Federation vs State of West Bengal

Amitava Lala, J.—The impugned award under challenge is passed on September 7, 1995 giving an explanation that till today the Petitioners are not aware as and when the award was published and no limitation is applicable in making writ petition as against the award. Even thereafter delay, if any, can be condoned on the bona fide ground. The Respondent took strong objection in respect of the maintainability of the writ petition at this belated stage. According to the Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent, no explanation has been given as regards delay. Two judgments, one of the Supreme Court and another of this High Court, are playing crucial role in respect of judicial review by the writ court challenging the award after considerable period of time.

The Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent firstly cited Sudhir Vishnu Panvalkar v. Bank of India J.T.1997 (5) 307 (S.C.) in its para. 5 whereunder the Supreme Court held that refusal in entertaining the writ petition due to voice of delay and laches is justifiable. Following that judgment, a Bench of this Court in Parry''s (Cal.) Employees'' Union and Anr. v. Third Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal and Ors. 2001 ll L.L.J. 39 also held that the writ application should not at all be entertained even on the ground of delay in moving the same. I find that there is no plausible explanation about the delay of publication of the award is not known to the Petitioners. The Petitioner No. 1 is a Union. It is very difficult to accept such submission being a Union, a collective body, even under the same management that even after the award passed on September 7, 1995 the same was unknown to them. After passing such award the duty of the Labour Court and Tribunal is to forward the same to the appropriate Government for the purpose of publication by way of notification. Once it is notified, it will be treated as notice to the public at large. It is impossible to believe that a Union was unaware of such award for a period of 8 years after passing of.the same.

As against other question as to whether the principle of CPC applies to the Industrial Disputes or not, the Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners submitted that the same is applicable. Therefore, the principle of CPC will also be applicable in respect of the question of fraud, if any, in deriving such compromise and/or settlement. In such case, the same will be adjudicated by the forum before whom such compromise or settlement was derived. Therefore, even on that score, the writ petition cannot be entertained because the award is based on compromise by way of settlement between a workman and the company before the Tribunal.

Therefore, taking into totality of the matter, I am of the view that the writ petition cannot be sustainable even at the threshold.

Thus, the writ petition stands dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.

Let urgent xeroxed certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the Learned Counsel for the parties within fortnight from the date of putting the requisites.