AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.—This writ petition impugns the award dated 10th July, 1996 of the Industrial Tribunal on the following reference:
Whether the withdrawal of scheme for Grant of one/two advance increments to the employee by the management is illegal and/or unjustified and if so, to what directions are necessary in this respect?
The Industrial Tribunal has in the order impugned in this petition held withdrawal of the scheme by the petitioner to be not in accordance with the provision of Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act and thus not in accordance with law. Liberty was granted to the petitioner to take a fresh decision in the matter in accordance with law.
The counsel for the respondent No. 2 Employees'' Union appeared and also filed a reply. This Court subsequently vide order dated 12th February, 1998 stayed the proceedings of implementation of the award aforesaid. Rule was issued in the writ petition on 24th April, 1998 and the interim order was made absolute. However the respondent No. 2 Union stopped appearing before this Court w.e.f. 21st November, 2005. Subsequently on 10th January, 2006 the counsel earlier appearing for the respondent No. 2 Union sought discharge. Notice of the said application was directed to be issued to Mr. Sidheshwar Prasad, Secretary of the respondent No. 2 Union. The said Mr. Sidheshwar Prasad appeared before this Court on 4th April, 2006 and sought time to engage another advocate. However neither any advocate appeared for the respondent No. 2 Union thereafter nor did the said Mr. Sidheshwar Prasad appear. However the writ petition was dismissed for non prosecution on 25th May, 2009 and thereafter applications for its restoration were filed by the petitioner. Notice issued of the said applications for restoration to the respondent No. 2 Union remained unserved. However the counsel for the petitioner on 12th March, 2010 brought the earlier orders to the notice of this Court and said that he will serve the aforesaid Mr. Sidheshwar Prasad. Mr. Sidheshwar Prasad again appeared before this Court on 19th April, 2010 and stated that since the factory of the petitioner had closed down in 2002, no union of employees'' was in existence and he, who was earlier functioning as a General Secretary of the Union, was also not now interested and sought discharge. He was accordingly discharged and the petition restored to its original position.
From the aforesaid, it is clear that the respondent No. 2 Union which had raised the dispute adjudicated by the Industrial Tribunal vide the award impugned in this petition has now ceased to exist and its members are no longer interested in contesting the present petition.
The counsel for the petitioner informs that the proceedings for winding up of the petitioner company are pending before the Company Judge of this Court and the order of winding up of the petitioner company has already been passed on 13th January, 2005. He also informs that though certain persons who claimed to have been engaged by the petitioner as contract workers have preferred their claims before the Company Court but none of the members of the respondent No. 2 Union or the respondent No. 2 Union has preferred any claim before the Company Court. He further states that subsequent to the aforesaid award the Government of India took a decision to wind up the petitioner company and a Voluntary Severance Scheme was formulated and which was availed of by all the regular employees of the petitioner company who were members of the respondent No. 2 Union.
From the aforesaid, it appears that the claims even, if any, of the members of the respondent No. 2 Union for benefits consequent to/under the award would not survive after the said employees have received payment under the Voluntary Severance Scheme.
The counsel for the petitioner has also fairly stated that in the absence of the respondent No. 2 Union or its employees, there is no purpose left in the present petition but he has no instruction to withdraw the same.
This Court is of the opinion that the members of the respondent No. 2 Union having, after the award, availed of and received payments under the Voluntary Severance Scheme on the closure of the undertaking of the petitioner, no useful purpose will be served in adjudicating the present petition. However for the sake of finality the award dated 10th July, 1996 is set aside/quashed in light of the subsequent events aforesaid and the writ petition is disposed of.
No order as to costs.