Mehar Singh and Others vs Delhi Administration

R.N. Aggarwal, J.

(1) This petition for revision, by Mehar Singh, Charan. Dass and Ujaggar Singh has arisen in the following circumstances. The above named three petitioners were partners of Messrs Be-BclgaRestaurant & Standard Burfi. Certain disputes arose between the managemenl and the workmen and the Delhi Administration, vide its Notification dated 14/02/1967 referred the disputes to the Labour Court for adjudication. On 5/05/1967, Shri Ved Prakash Aggarwal, the Labour Court passed an interim award allowing interim relief to the workmen. The interim award was that the management shall pay 50 per cent of the wages, besides Rs. 12.50 per month byway of food allowance, to all the workmen from the date of the order of dismissal till the final decision, of the case or till the closure of the concern ,whichever is earlier. The interim award was published in the Delhi Gazette on 6/07/1967, u/s 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter called the "Act"). u/s 17A,the award became enforceable on the expiry of 30 days from the date of its publication under section. 17. Under sub-section. (3) of section 18 of the Act, the award became binding on the parties with effect from the date it became enforceable. The management did not comply with the interim award. On 24/04/1968, Delhi Admiaistration through the Labour Commissioner, filled a complaint u/s 29 of the Act against the petitioners for failure to comply with the award .The workmen made an application u/s 33C(l) to the appropriate government for the recovery of the money due from the management. On 1 4/05/1968, the Labour Commissioner acting for the appropriate government, issued certificate for recovery of Rs. 28,602.31 P as arrears of land revenue from the management.

(2) On 18/05/1968, the petitioners filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the notice of demand for the sum of Rs. 28,602.31 in this Court. Along with the position ,the petitioners moved an application for stay of the recovery of Rs.28,682.31. The said petition came up for consideration on 20/05/1968 before Hon''ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice I.D. Dua (as his Lordship then was) and Mr. Justice V. S. Deshpande. Their Lordships passed the following order on the petition:

" RULE. Notice re: recovery for 27-5-68. Stay till then."

(3) On 27/05/1968, Dua J. modified the order dated 20/05/1968,and passed an order directing the petitioners to deposit the amounting the Court within two weeks and further directed that the amount be not paid to the workmen without an order of the court. The petitioners in compliance of this order deposited the requisite amount. On 18/02/1971, the writ petition in view of some compromise between the parties was dismissed as withdrawn.

(4) The trial Magistrate, vide his order dated 22nd April, 1969, found and the petitioners guilty of the offence u/s 29 of the Act and sentenced each one of them to simple imprisonment for 15 days anda fine of Rs. 500.00 and in default of payment of fine to undergo S.I. for 15 days. Against their conviction and sentence the petitioners went in appeal to the Sessions Judge. The appeal was heard by Shri O.N. Vohra, Additional Sessions Judge, on 30/04/1971 and he affirmed the conviction of the petitioners but reduced the sentence of imprisonment to that already undergone and imposed a fine of Rs.750.00, and in default the accused were to undergo the sentence awarded to them by the Magistrate. Against this order the petitioners have come in revision to this court.

(5) Dr. Anand Prakash on behalf of the petitioners contended that the order dated 5/05/1967, is not an. award within the meaning of section 2(b) of the Act and, Therefore, the conviction of the petitioners u/s 29 is not legal. Section 2(b) of the Act defines'' award'' and it reads as:-

"(B)"award" means an interim or a final determination of any industrial dispute or of any question relating thereto by any Labour Court, Industrial Tribunal or National Industrial Tribunal and includes an arbitration award made u/s 10A."

(6) The contention of Dr. Anand Prakash is that by the order dated 5/05/1967, the Labour Court had not finally determined any industrial dispute or any question relating thereto referred to the Labour Court for adjudication and, Therefore, this order cannot be called an award within the definition of the word ''award'' as given in the Act the counsel in support of his contention placed reliance on The Management of Hotel Imperial, New Delhi and Others Vs. Hotel Workers'' Union, . The facts of the cited case were that certain disputes had arisen between the managements of Hotel Imperial ,New Delhi, Maiden''s Hotel, Delhi and Swiss Hotel, Delhi, and their respective workmen. On 12/10/1955, the disputes between the management and the workmen were referred to the Industrial Tribunal. The workmen filed applications before the Tribunal for interim relief. On 5/12/1955, the Tribunal passed an order granting interim relief. The management filed appeals against the order granting interim relief to the workmen before the Labour Appellate Tribunal. The appeals were dismissed by the Labour Appellate Tribunal on 28/05/1956. Against the order of the Appellate Tribunal, the management went in appeal to the Supreme Court by special leave. Applications were moved before the Supreme Court for the stay of the order of the Industrial Tribunal granting interim relief .The Supreme Court stayed the order on certain conditions. One of the questions that arose for determination before the Supreme Court was whether an Industrial Tribunal was competent to grant interim relief without making an interim award which should have beenpublished. The learned counsel relied upon the following observations made by the Supreme Court:-

" THE next question is as to how the tribunal should proceed in the matter if it decides to grant interim relief. The definition of The word "award" shows that it can be either an interim or final determination either of the whole of the dispute referred to the tribunal or of any question relating thereto. Thus it is open to the tribunal to give an award about the entire dispute at the end of all proceedings. This will be final determination of the industrial dispute referred to it. It is also open to the tribunal to make an award about some of the matters referred to it whilst some other still remain to be decided. This will be an interim determination of any question relating thereto. In either case it will have to bs published as required by S. 17 Such awards are. however, not in the nature of interim relief for they decide the industrial dispute or some question relating thereto .Interim relief, on the other hand, is granted under the power conferred on the tribunal under S. 10(4) with respect to matters incidental to the points of dispute for adjudication."

(7) The learned counsel basing himself on the above observations of the Supreme Court contended that the order dated 5/05/1967 granting interim relief to the workmen is not an interim or final award. I have carefully gone through the cited authority and I find that the Supreme Court did not express any final opinion on this question. The Supreme Court observed :

" WE do not think it necessary to decide for present purposes whether an order granting interim relief of this kind is an award within the meaning of section 2(b) and must, Therefore, be published under S. 17."

(8) In the instant case, the dispute referred to the Labour Court was whether the dismissal of the workmen by the Management was illegal and unjustified and what relief they were entitled to. In the reference, on the adjudication by the Labour Court that the dismissal of the workmen. was not legal, the Labour Court could have allowed back wages to the workmen. Section 10(4) of the Act provides-

"(4)Where in an order referring an industrial dispute to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal under this section or IN a subsequent order, the appropriate Government has specified the points of dispute for adjudication, the Labour Court or the Tribunal or the National Tribunal, as the case may be, shall confine its adjudication to those points and matters incidental thereto."

(9) It is clear from a reading of the provisions of section 10(4) that the Labour Court or any other authority named therein has the jurisdiction only to decide the disputes specified in the order of reference and the points and matters incidental thereto. In the case of Hotel Imperial(supra), it has been held that the interim relief of the kind in question can be given by the Tribunal u/s 10(4) of the Act. The Labou Court had on an application by the workmen and on a consideration of the circumstances in which the order of dismissal was passed allowed interim relief to the workmen. I am of the view that such an order will amount to an interim award within the meaning of section 2(b) and would be enforceable and binding on the parties on being published u/s 17 of the Act. There appears to beno cogent reason to limit the scope of the term ''award'' to only final determination of the disputes or some of the disputes. In The Management of the Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna vs. The Workman of(the Bihar State Electricity Board and others, (1971) 1 Llj 389,(2) a Division Bench of that Court held-

" ACCORDING to the Oxford Dictionary the word "interim" has been defined inter aha to say "a temporary or provisional arrangement adopted in the meanwhil''e''. I should, therefore think that if at the time of the final determination of the industrial dispute the award can provide for payment of wages or a portion thereof and if the Tribunal, on the facts and in the circumstances of a particular case, thinks it fit and proper to give such an interim relief to the workman concerned, in that event under cl. (b) of S. 2 of the Act the order giving interim relief will be an interim award. . . . ."

Their Lordships further held-

" ON the basis of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of The Management of Hotel Imperial, New Delhi and Others Vs. Hotel Workers'' Union, , I have to hold that the Tribunal has the power to grant such an interim relief under S. 10(4) of the Act. But it follows that whether such a relief is granted at the time of final adjudication as the final award or is granted by way of a temporary or provisional arrangement during pendency of the reference case, the order has got to take the form and effect of an interim award under cl. (b) of S. 2 of the Act. There is no provision in the Act empowering the Tribunal to make an order granting relief to a discharged workman except by way of making an interim award which can be made according to the decision of the Supreme Court under S. 10(4) of the Act, or, I should think, even apart from that, by the force of the definition of the term'' award .. . . ."

(10) In Punjab National Bank Limited Vs. A.N. Sen and Others, , a similar point came up for determination. Their Lordships Weston, C.J. and Harnam Singh, J. held that

" THE expression ''interim award'' does not necessarily mean determination of some items out of the items that the Tribunal is called upon to determine and that, Therefore, the Tribunal had jurisdiction to pass the'' interim'' order which came within S. 2(b)."

(11) The rule laid down in the cases of Punjab National Bank Ltd. and the Bihar State Electricity Board (supra) is directly in point and I am of the view that the order dated 5/05/1967, would be an award within the definition of the word ''award'' as given in section 2(b) of the Act.

(12) Dr. Anand Prakash next contended that the operation of the award dated 5/05/1967, was stayed by the High Court on 20/05/1968, and the petitioners had paid the amount in terms of the order of the High Court dated 27/05/1968, and the petitioners had not committed any breach of the order dated 5/05/1967, and therefore the conviction of the petitioners u/s 29 is not legal. I have given my careful thought to this argument of the learned counsel butI regret I am unable to accept it. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court u/s 10 of the Act. The Labour Court made the interim award on 5/05/1967. Section 17 of the Act provides for publication of reports and awards. Section 17A provides that an award shall become enforceable on the expiry of thirty days from the date of its publication u/s 17. Section 18(3) provides that an award made by a Labour Court which has become enforceable shall be binding on all parties to the industrial dispute.

(13) From a reading of the provisions mentioned above, it would be clear that the award dated 5/05/1967, had become enforceable and binding on all parties to the dispute from 6/08/1967. the petitioners admittedly had not made the payments under the interim award up to the institution of the complaint. The workmen moved the appropriate Government u/s 33-C(1) of the Act for the recovery of the money due to them. On this application the Labour Commissioner; acting for appropriate government, issued a certificate to the Collector for the recovery of the amount of Rs. 28,602.31 P. The petitioner filed a Writ Petition in the High Court against the demand of the sum of Rs. 28,602.31 P. The High Court granted an interim stay order for the recovery of the said amount on 20/05/1968and on 27/05/1968, Dua J. passed an order directing the petitioners to deposit the amount within two weeks and further made a direction that the workmen will not take the money without the order of the Court .I have perused the writ petition that was filed by the petitioners in the High Court and I find that no relief was claimed by the petitioners against the award dated the 5/05/1967. The petitioners had challenged the validity of the demand order on the ground that the provisions of section 33-C(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act had not been complied with. The validity of the interim award was not in question in the writ proceedings. The interim award had become binding on the petitioners on 6/08/1967, and they did not comply with this award uptill the institution of the complaint u/s 29. The petitioner had clearly committed a breach of the award. In my view the stay order granted in the petition under Article 226 filed by the petitioners against the certificate of recovery ofRs.28,602.31P.did not in any way affect the merits the prosecution and the conviction of the petitioners u/s 29 of the Act.

(14) Dr. Anand Prakash next contended that the interim determination dated 5/05/1967, was ultimately substituted by the final award dated 18/02/1971 which was implemented by the management and, Therefore, on the date of the decision by the Sessions Judge there was no dispute left and the offence is at best a technical offence. This argument is, in my view, without substance. The fact that the interim award was ultimately substituted by the final award which was implemented by the management does not in any way affect the liability that was incurred by the petitioners under the interim award. the petitioners having failed to comply with the interim award, they had rendered themselves liable to prosecution and conviction u/s 29 of the Act.

(15) For the foregoing reasons, I find that the conviction of the petitioners is legal and does not suffer from any infirmity. I maintain the conviction and the sentence and the petition is rejected.