1991 (1) TMI 442 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the refusal by the respondent-Municipal Corporation to abide by the Industrial Tribunal's award.
2. Binding nature of the award on the successor entity.
3. Jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal.
4. Collusion in obtaining the award.
5. Necessity of joining other workmen as parties in the petition.
6. Claim of interest on delayed payment of wages.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Refusal by the Respondent-Municipal Corporation to Abide by the Industrial Tribunal's Award:
The primary issue was whether the respondent-Municipal Corporation could refuse to abide by the Industrial Tribunal's award in Reference (IT) No. 152 of 1985. The petitioners argued that the Corporation had no right to change the status of the employees, who had become permanent by virtue of the award, to daily-rated casual employees. The Corporation contended that it was only liable to abide by the terms and conditions of the employees as they existed on November 5, 1985, and that the award passed between November 5, 1985, and February 22, 1986, was not binding on it.

2. Binding Nature of the Award on the Successor Entity:
The court held that the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal was binding on the respondent-Municipal Corporation as the successor of Saijpur Bogha Nagar Palika. The award, published on February 3, 1986, became enforceable from March 4, 1986. The court noted that as per Section 18(3)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the award is binding on successors or assigns of the establishment to which the dispute relates. Therefore, the Corporation, being the successor, was bound by the award.

3. Jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal:
The court examined whether the Industrial Tribunal had jurisdiction to pass the award. It concluded that the Tribunal was properly constituted and acted within its powers under the Industrial Disputes Act. The reference was validly made by the appropriate Government, and the Tribunal performed its duty to adjudicate the disputes referred to it. The court rejected the contention that the award was without jurisdiction simply because it was passed between November 5, 1985, and February 22, 1986.

4. Collusion in Obtaining the Award:
The respondent-Corporation argued that the award was obtained by collusion. The court examined the allegations and found no concrete evidence of collusion. It noted that the settlement was arrived at in a pending reference made in February 1985 and was placed before the Tribunal on December 10, 1985. The Tribunal considered the justness and propriety of the consent terms and passed the award. The court held that there was no secret deal or understanding and rejected the argument of collusion.

5. Necessity of Joining Other Workmen as Parties in the Petition:
The respondent-Corporation contended that other workmen employed by the Corporation and other specified local authorities should have been joined as parties in the petition. The court rejected this contention, stating that the petitioners were only claiming benefits flowing from the award passed in their favor. The court noted that the petitioners did not seek to deprive other workmen of their benefits, and therefore, it was not necessary to join other workmen as parties in the petition.

6. Claim of Interest on Delayed Payment of Wages:
The petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 991 of 1989 claimed interest on the delayed payment of wages. The court upheld the claim of interest on equitable grounds, noting that if an employee performs his part of the contract, he is entitled to claim wages and can legitimately ask for regular payment. The court directed the respondent-Corporation to pay interest at the rate of 15% per annum on the delayed payment of wages and other monetary benefits from August 15, 1987, onwards until the actual payment.

Judgments Delivered:
- Special Civil Application No. 1362 of 1986: The court allowed the petition, directing the respondent-Municipal Corporation to abide by the directions given in the award passed in Reference (IT) No. 152 of 1985. The employees listed in Schedule B to the petition were declared permanent employees entitled to claim the time scale of pay. The Corporation was directed not to reduce their wages or convert their status to daily-rated casual employees.
- Special Civil Application No. 991 of 1989: The court allowed the petition, declaring that the petitioners were covered by the award Part III dated July 31, 1987. The petitioners were entitled to claim benefits of revised pay-scales and other benefits with effect from January 1, 1986. The court directed the payment of monetary benefits with interest at the rate of 15% per annum from August 15, 1987, onwards until the actual payment.