9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction and authority of the industrial tribunal to pass an interim award. 2. Legality and validity of the retrenchment of employees. 3. Interpretation and enforcement of the agreement dated 9-6-1951. 4. Compliance with procedural requirements under the Industrial Disputes Act. 5. Error apparent on the face of the record. Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction and Authority of the Industrial Tribunal to Pass an Interim Award: The primary contention from the corporation was that the law does not contemplate the passing of an interim award. It was argued that the only award that could be passed by a tribunal is on the conclusion of the enquiry as provided for in Section 15 of the Industrial Disputes Act. The tribunal, however, passed an interim award ordering the management to pay wages with arrears to the retrenched or dismissed workers until the final award is passed. The court found that the tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in passing the interim award, as the interim relief granted was beyond the scope of the reference made by the government. 2. Legality and Validity of the Retrenchment of Employees: The retrenchment of employees was a significant issue, with the Chief Engineer's report indicating that the retrenchment was necessary and justified, though the method adopted was irregular. The tribunal's role was to determine the specific individuals to be retrenched, not to question the necessity of retrenchment itself. The court held that the tribunal's interim award, which required the corporation to pay wages to the retrenched employees until retrenchment was found necessary, was based on a misapprehension that the necessity for retrenchment was still to be decided. 3. Interpretation and Enforcement of the Agreement Dated 9-6-1951: The agreement reached on 9-6-1951 between the corporation and the employees, in the presence of various officials, including the Chief Minister, was another focal point. The tribunal interpreted this agreement as binding and used it as a basis for granting interim relief. However, the court noted that the tribunal was under a misapprehension regarding the proceedings on 9-6-1951, mistaking them for conciliation proceedings under the Act, which would make the agreement binding and enforceable. The court clarified that the proceedings were not conciliation proceedings as contemplated by the Act, thus the agreement could not be enforced by the tribunal. 4. Compliance with Procedural Requirements under the Industrial Disputes Act: The court examined whether the tribunal complied with the procedural requirements under the Industrial Disputes Act. It was found that the tribunal did not adhere to the provisions regarding the publication and enforceability of awards. Specifically, the interim award violated Section 17-A of the Act, which stipulates that an award becomes enforceable only on the expiry of thirty days from its publication in the Gazette. The tribunal's interim award, which required compliance within a week of publication, was therefore ultra vires and invalid. 5. Error Apparent on the Face of the Record: The court identified an error apparent on the face of the record, as the tribunal was under the mistaken belief that point No. 3 of the agreement dated 9-6-1951 was the same as issue No. 3 in the reference made by the government. This misapprehension led the tribunal to grant interim relief based on an incorrect understanding of the issues before it. The court held that this constituted a ground for interference by way of certiorari, as recognized by the Supreme Court in similar cases. Conclusion: The court quashed the interim award passed by the tribunal on 27-12-1951, holding that the tribunal had usurped jurisdiction and that the award was vitiated by an error apparent on the face of the record. The original petition was allowed with costs, and the tribunal's proceedings were deemed invalid and beyond its jurisdiction.
|
