Panipat Cooperative Sugar Mills Limited vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala and Others

Satish Kumar Mittal, J.—The Panipat Cooperative Sugar Mills Limited (hereinafter referred to as the management) has filed the instant Letters Patent Appeal, challenging the order dated 17.3.2011, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby Civil Writ Petition No. 13354 of 1989 filed by the management for quashing 13 different awards dated 6.4.1989 (Annexures P-4 to P-16) given by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala, in 13 references in the cases of respondents No. 2 to 14, has been dismissed. Though there is a delay of 153 days in filing the appeal and the appellant has filed application (CM No. 1211-LPA of 2012) for condoning the delay, yet we have heard learned counsel for the appellant on merits, and gone through the order, passed by the learned Single Judge.

In the present case, respondents No. 2 to 14, who were working with the management, served charter of demands praying therein that they should be made regular on the posts on which they were working. Their demand was referred to the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Haryana, Faridabad, by the Government for adjudication and the references were registered at serial No. 7/1986. During the pendency of the said references, the management refused the workmen to join their duty. Since the management contravened the provisions of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''), the workmen filed various complaints before the Tribunal. During the pendency of those complaints, the parties had amicably settled the dispute. A statement was made by the management that the workmen shall be taken back in service with the assurance that there would not be any break in their service. In view of this statement, the complaints filed by the workmen were dismissed as withdrawn on 10.9.1987.

Subsequently, though the workmen were taken back in service, but they were not paid wages for the period for which they were not permitted to work. Thereupon, the workmen filed separate applications u/s 33C (2) of the Act for grant of wages for the said period, which in case of respondent No. 2 came to be Rs. 6,277/- for the period from 1.4.1986 to 15.5.1987 at the rate of Rs. 465/- per month.

The Labour Court, after providing opportunity to the management to lead evidence as well as opportunity of hearing, passed separate awards in the cases of respondents No. 2 to 14, and allowed their applications holding that they shall be entitled to the wages for the period for which they were not allowed to perform their duties.

The management challenged all those 13 awards by filing a single writ petition, which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide the impugned order, while observing that a single writ petition filed by the management challenging different awards was not maintainable. In this regard, a Division Bench decision of the Madras High Court in R. Maria Thangam v. U. Murugesan and others, 1979 Lab. I.C. 455 has been relied upon. On merits, it has been held that in the facts and circumstances of the case, a petition u/s 33C (2) of the Act was maintainable and the Labour Court has rightly awarded the wages, as in the earlier settlement arrived at between the parties, the management had agreed to take all the workmen back in service, without there being any break. It has been held that in view of the said agreement, the workmen could not have been denied the wages on the principle of ''no work, no pay'', because it was the management which did not allow the workmen to work. In this regard, the learned Single Judge has relied upon a decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board v. C. Muddaiah, (2007) 7 SCC 689

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the award dated 10.9.1987 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Haryana, Faridabad, whereby the complaint filed by one of the workmen u/s 33A of the Act was dismissed as withdrawn, on the basis of the amicable settlement between the parties; different awards passed by the Labour Court on the applications u/s 33C (2) of the Act filed by the workmen; and the order of the learned Single Judge, we do not find any merit in the instant appeal.

In the present case, the writ petition filed by the management was dismissed not only on the basis of technical objection with regard to its maintainability being jointly challenging different awards, but the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition on merits, after coming to the conclusion that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Labour Court has rightly allowed the applications filed by the workmen for grant of wages for the period during which they were not permitted to perform their duties, though they were always ready and willing for the same.

Learned counsel for the appellant-management argued that earlier, when the matter was settled before the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Haryana, Faridabad, though it was assured that the workmen will be taken back in service, but with a condition that in future, there will be no break in their service. It has been argued that as far as the past period was concerned, no assurance was given that the workmen will be paid wages for the said period, during which they had not worked. In our opinion, this contention cannot be accepted. In the order dated 10.9.1987, the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Haryana, Faridabad, had observed as under :

Now the parties have amicably settled the dispute, the complainant has been taken back in service by the respondent (Distillery Units) with the assurance that he will not be given any break in the service. In view of the position explained by the authorised representative of the management, the complainant does not want to proceed with this complaint and the statement of authorised representatives of the parties was reduced into writing.

The aforesaid observation clearly indicates that the workmen (referred as complainant) were taken back in service and a categoric assurance was given by the management that they would not be given any break in service. The assurance of not giving any break in service does not relate to future, but it relates to the past, because grouse of the workmen in the complaint was that during the pendency of the reference, the management violated the provision of Section 33A of the Act by not allowing them to discharge their duties and in the aforesaid complaint, an assurance was given by the management that there will be no break in service. It is, thus, clear indication that the workmen will be taken back with continuity of service, which means that they shall be entitled for the wages for the period, during which they were not allowed to perform their duties. The learned Single Judge, in our view, while relying upon Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board v. C. Muddaiah (supra), has rightly observed that when a workman was willing to work but was not allowed to work, then he is to be treated ''as if he had worked'' and is, thus, entitled for wages. We do not find any illegality in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Dismissed.