AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Lahiri, J.—Mr. G.K. Talukdar, learned Counsel for the workman Shri Kali Charan Das has drawn a morbid picture of the entire situation in which the battle scarred workman had to fight a long drawn battle almost single handed against the Management. Indeed, he has obtained an award on the 21st December, 1984 but it is ''just a paper award'' as the workman has not been to harvest the fruit of ''the award''. The Management has implemented the Award. So, his claims including the monetary benefits are still in arrears. The award cannot be implemented as the Management filed writ petition and the records have been drawn here. We are unsure when the life of the proceedings would terminate. Mr. Talukdar was frantically prayed that the sick and bed-ridden workman should be paid something to enable him to live and exist and then to contest the writ petition.
The question posed has created a great impact in our mind. We are thinking about the working class as a whole. The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 the cognate and agnate acts are social legislations. Failing settlement by way of conciliation workman thrown out of employment are required to contest proceedings before the Tribunal, Labour Court, etc. Indeed, the Unions have done yeoman services to the workman. They take up and espouse the cases of the afflicted workman. In those proceedings apart from incurring costs and expenses for attending the proceedings or (SIC) the witnesses to be brought, the workman are to maintain the numbers of the family. There is no provision in "the Act" to provide or grant interim relief to the workman even when the Tribunal or Labour Court finds that the workman has a strong prima facie case, and, though the fights are for their lives and livelihood.
In the instant case, the workman is fighting his case since 1978 and the award has been made in his favour on 21.12.84. For six long years the workman fought and an award has been reward to him with various reliefs. But ironically the workman is yet to receive copper benefit. The Management has filed the writ application in this Court and the records have been drawn at this end. There is no order of the Court staying the operation of the award. We are of the tentative view that when a writ application is filed by the Management against an award in favour of the workman, it must implement the award or it must ask for stay.
Is the Management entitled to stall the operation of the award by merely presenting an application under Article 226 of the Constitution and deprive the workman the reliefs granted by the Tribunal or the Labour, Court? Is the Management entitled to continue with the writ petition without implementing the award where the workman has been reinstated with back wages and costs? We are of the tentative view that the Management is to implement the award, however it may not reinstate a workman if it does not like to take his services. In that event the Management is to file an application u/s 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and obtain an order from the Court to relieve its obligation to reinstate the workman on payment of full wages last drawn by the workman including all maintenance allowances admissible to him under the standing orders of the service rules. It appears, that the management is to ask leave of the Court to relieve it from implementing that part of the award by which the workman has been reinstated only upon payment of wages etc. of the management must show that the workman is employed in "an establishment" and getting ''equivalent wages'' to which be was entitled to it be were reinstated. It appears to us that the management is legally entitled to ask for stay of that part of the award whereby the Tribunal, etc. reinstates a workman. The Management is not statutorily entitled to obtain stay of the award in respect of other reliefs. It is therefore, seen that the Management is obligated to implement an award no sooner it comes into operation u/s 17A of "the Act". However, the High Court may in a given case and on the facts and circumstances of the case, stay the operation of the award subject to such conditions it may think fit and proper.
It has been pointed out by Mr. J.P. Bhattacharjee, learned Counsel for the Management that back wages, etc. are required to be computed by the Labour Court before that award can be implemented. We ask ourselves as to whether the proceedings for the computation should await till the disposal of the writ petition? Why not the computation proceed and payment be made during the writ proceedings? The workman cannot file an application to the appropriate Government for implementing the award as the records are held back by the High Court. Under this situation we are of the tentative view that the Management is obligated to implement the award on block if it prefers an application under Article 226 of the Constitution, subject to the right conferred on it by Section 17B of "the Act". The law is unclear but we are of the tentative view that the spirit of the law leans in favour of the workmen. In a civil action where a Money Decree is passed, the decree is not stayed even when the aggrieved party appeals-except in exceptional cases vide, Code of Civil Procedure. If that be the position in law in respect of the rich, the poor workmen should get equal treatment and should be allowed to draw the benefit of the award in toto notwithstanding the pendency of a writ petition against the award. An award granting back wages or compensation to a workman is the fountainhead of his life and livelihood. The right need be viewed in terms of the spirit of the Constitution of India in particular the provisions of the Fundamental rights under Articles 19 and 21 and the directive principles contained in part-IV of the Constitution. Something required to be set out expressly in missing in "the Act" though it can be gathered impliedly.
Section 17B of "the Act" speaks eloquently that the Management is obligated to implement the entire award except the portion of the award which reinstates a workman. As the provision permits the management to ask for stay only that part of the award it implies that insofar as the other reliefs awarded the Management is obligated to implement them forthwith. The Tribunal or the Labour Court, etc. are the final authority to decide industrial disputes. The awards are final subject to review by the High Court in its extra ordinary jurisdiction under exceptional circumstances. As such, the implementation of an award is not stayed on presentation of a writ petition; the obligation of the management to implement it, appears to be the rule.
Section 17B of "the Act" deals with the life and livelihood of the working class. The Management is ordinarily obligated to reinstate a workman as directed by the Tribunal, etc. However, it may not employ the workman but it has statutory obligation to pay wages and other benefits set out in the Section. Section 17B creates a right in favour of the workman and imposes obligation on the management. If it is held that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution may continue without implementing the award then what is the use of Section 17B of "the Act" to stay the operation of the award of reinstatement?
We are of the tentative view that in a writ petition by the management against an award, it is obligatory on the part of the management to implement the award and then to make an application under Article 226 of the Constitution. However, the Management may not reinstate the workman on obtaining an order from the Court u/s 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. This aspect needs consideration of the Parliament. These are our tentative view. We also feel the necessity of suitable provision to be incorporated in the High Court Rules. However, we do not propose to decide the question finally in view of the rational stance taken by learned Counsel of the parties.
Mr. J.P. Bhattacharjee, learned Counsel for the Management submits that after the termination of the services of the workman he was offered a sum of Rs. 37,664.68 p. Mr. G.K. Talukdar, learned Counsel for the workman submits that the amount may be raised to a limit which is reasonable. Learned Counsel for both the parties leave the matter to the Court.
Accordingly, balancing the convenience and inconvenience of both the parties and on the facts and circumstances of the case we feel that at present, the management should pay a sum of Rs. 60,000.00 to the workman within a month from today. The payment of the amount has become imperative as the workman is ailing. We, therefore, direct the Petitioner-management to pay the aforesaid amount to the workman by a Demand Draft within one month from to-day. The Bank Draft may be handed over to Mr. B. Choudhury, learned Counsel who also appears on behalf of the workman with Mr. G. Talukdar. Mr. Choudhury shall undoubtedly hand over the draft to the concerned workman or his authorised agent.
With the aforesaid order and directions we dispose of the application. However, as prayed for we grant liberty to both the parties to ask for amendment, alteration or cancellation of this order.
Before parting we would observe that learned Counsel for both the parties have submitted that the case should be disposed of at an early date. Accordingly, we propose to pass an order in the Civil Rule directing that it should come up for hearing on 10.11.86.
12A. In the result the petition is accepted to the extent indicated above. There will be no order as to costs.