Municipal Corporation (Nagar Nigam) vs The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal and Others

G.S. Singhvi, J.—When this case was taken up for admission, Shri B.R. Mahajan, Advocate appeared on behalf of Respondents 2 to 33 who are real contesting parties. Both the learned counsels submitted that the case may be decided without service of notice on Respondents No. 1 and 34 who are formal parties. We have also considered the matter and are of the opinion that service of notice on Respondents 1 and 34 is not necessary for the purpose of deciding this writ petition.

The petitioner-Municipal Corporation, Amritsar has challenged the illegality of the award dated September 30, 1993 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Punjab whereby the said Tribunal has quashed the punishment orders passed by the competent authorities and has directed the payment of monetary benefits to the workmen with effect from November 1, 1986.

The first argument of Shri Takkar, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Tribunal has committed a serious irregularity in entertaining the reference made by the Government on June 21, 1990 in respect of the punishment orders passed against various workmen between 1977 to 1988. Shri Takkar argued that no explanation whatsoever was offered by the workmen for the abnormal delay in raising the dispute and the Tribunal has completely lost sight of this aspect of the case while passing the impugned award.

The second argument of Shri Takkar is that even if the Tribunal''s finding regarding the invalidity of the orders of punishment is held to be correct, the direction given by it for payment of arrears of monetary benefits with effect from November 1, 1986 must be set aside. Learned counsel submitted that in such like matters the Tribunal should not have given relief to the workmen for a period of more than three years prior to the date of the award.

Shri Mahajan, on the other hand, argued that no objection regarding delay was raised before the Tribunal and, therefore, the Tribunal had no occasion to record a finding on that issue. He further contended that various orders of punishment passed against the respondents-workmen were void and, therefore, the Tribunal has rightly granted a declaration to that effect. On the issue of arrears of monetary benefits, Shri Mahajan submitted that the Tribunal has not committed any jurisdiction error in directing the payment of arrears w.e.f. November 1, 1986.

In our opinion, Shri Mahajan is right in contending that no objection of delay or laches was raised by the petitioner before the Tribunal and for this reason, the Tribunal did not record any finding on that issue, This being the factual position, we do not find any justifiable ground to entertain this objection for the first time in a writ of certiorari.

However, we find substantial force in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the Tribunal should not have ordered payment of arrears of more than three years. A look at the impugned award shows that the Tribunal has not assigned any reason for fixing the date with reference to which the arrears of monetary benefits have been directed to be paid to the workmen. In our opinion, this is a fit case in which the benefit of arrears should be confined to a period of three years from the date of award.

Consequently, the writ petition is partly allowed. While upholding the impugned award in regard to the finding of the Tribunal about the invalidity of the orders of punishment, we modify the same regarding arrears payable to the workmen and direct that they shall be entitled to the payment of arrears only for a period of three years prior to the passing of the award. The petitioner is directed to make payment of the arrears to the workmen within a period of one month from today. Copy of the order be given dasti on payment.