2016 (8) TMI 1489 - HC - Indian Laws

Release of salaries and retiral benefits - monetary claim - writ petitioners approached the Learned Single Judge alleging that the appellant company has not been making payment of their salaries and other allowances after attaining the age of 58 years though they continued or are continuing in service till the age of 60 years - HELD THAT - The writ petitioners insist that they are entitled to salary and other benefits for service rendered between 58 years and 60 years of age while the company maintains that retirement age at all material times was 58 years and in any event, the employees, in fact, did not render any service beyond the age of 58 years. These are disputed questions of fact which, in our opinion, cannot be conveniently gone into in the exercise of writ jurisdiction. There is an alternative and much more efficacious statutory remedy available to the writ petitioners - Sec. 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act provides for a mechanism for resolution of disputes relating to a workman's claim for money or any benefit which can be computed in terms of money. The documents relied upon by the writ petitioners/respondents in respect of their contention that they served the company till the age of 60 years, are not conclusive. If the company is able to establish its case that since 2003 the Rupnarainpur Unit of the company was virtually lying closed and the writ petitioners showed attendance only on papers which were also prepared by them and their colleagues, it would be unfair to foist liability on the company for paying the wages and other benefits of the writ petitioners beyond the age of 58 years. That would also result in unjust enrichment of the writ petitioners. These are questions of fact, determination whereof requires a full-fledged trial with witness action, for which the writ court is not the forum. Labour Courts have been set up to entertain and adjudicate upon precisely the kind of dispute that is involved in the present writ proceeding. The claim of the writ petitioners projected in the present proceeding can be adjudicated properly, more conveniently and much more efficaciously by the Labour Court. It is the Labour Court which the writ petitioners should have approached instead of invoking the writ jurisdiction of this court. Appeal allowed - This will, however, not prevent the writ petitioners/respondents from approaching the appropriate forum to enforce their claim in accordance with law and the procedure contemplated.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the writ petition.
2. Validity of the Standing Orders and the applicable retirement age.
3. Impact of previous judgments and agreements on the retirement age.
4. Union of India's obligation to provide financial assistance.
5. Alternative remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Writ Petition:
The appellant company argued that the writ petition was not maintainable as it sought to enforce a money claim arising from a contractual right, which should be pursued through a civil suit or under the Industrial Disputes Act. The court noted that the subject matter of the writ petition was a monetary claim, and disputed questions of fact were involved, which are better suited for adjudication by the Labour Court under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The court concluded that the writ petition was not the appropriate forum for such disputes and directed the petitioners to approach the Labour Court.

2. Validity of the Standing Orders and the Applicable Retirement Age:
The company contended that the 1964 Standing Orders, which stipulated the retirement age as 58 years, were still in force, and the 1977 Standing Orders were invalid as they did not contain a superannuation clause. The court examined the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, and related rules, noting that the requirement to include a retirement age came into effect in 1983. The court acknowledged the tripartite agreement of 1974 and the bipartite agreement of 2001, which set the retirement age at 60 years, but emphasized that these agreements should be examined in detail by the Labour Court to determine their validity and applicability.

3. Impact of Previous Judgments and Agreements on the Retirement Age:
The court considered the earlier Division Bench judgment, which had directed the company to pay salaries up to the age of 60 years. However, it noted that the issues raised in the present case were not considered by the earlier Division Bench, and the judgment was passed per incuriam (in ignorance of relevant statutory provisions and precedents). The court held that the earlier judgment did not create a binding precedent and could not be relied upon to perpetuate an illegality.

4. Union of India's Obligation to Provide Financial Assistance:
The Union of India challenged the conditional obligation imposed by the learned Single Judge to provide financial assistance to the company for payment of dues. The court referred to several Supreme Court decisions, emphasizing that a government company is a separate legal entity and its liabilities cannot be attributed to the government. The court concluded that there was no legal obligation on the part of the Union of India to meet the company's financial obligations but left it open for the Union of India to provide funds if deemed appropriate.

5. Alternative Remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act:
The court underscored the availability of an alternative remedy under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, which provides a mechanism for resolving disputes related to monetary claims by workmen. The court reiterated that the Labour Court is the appropriate forum for adjudicating such disputes, and the writ petitioners should have approached the Labour Court instead of invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.

Conclusion:
The court set aside the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge, directing the writ petitioners to approach the Labour Court for adjudication of their claims. It also clarified that the Union of India was not legally obligated to provide financial assistance to the company but could do so at its discretion. The appeal was allowed, and no costs were awarded.