9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (2) TMI 328X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ess allowance to the daily-rated workmen employed at the respondents Wadala Factory at the same rate as is paid to the monthly-rated employees, with effect from 1.1.1964. On 15.11.1965 these demands were placed before the Conciliation Officer and thereafter before the Conciliation Board. On 15.3.1967 the Conciliation Board submitted its failure report. It appears that the recommendations of the Central Wage Board were awaited at that time and the company agreed to implement the final recommendations of the said Board as accepted by the Central Government. On 26.4.1968 the appellant-Union submitted a memorandum before the Government reiterating the said demand. They claimed the said benefit with effect from 15.11.1965. On 5.7.1968 the Government referred the said dispute to the Industrial Tribunal. In November, 1968 the respondent-company filed a Writ Petition in the Bombay High Court challenging the validity of the order of reference. On 27.2.1973 the High Court disposed of the Writ Petition in the following terms: "By consent the order Exhibit-C dated 5.7.1968 is set aside without prejudice to the rights of the respondents to refer fresh dispute in respect of the same demands ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion on the power of the Industrial Tribunal flows from the decisions of this Court, to which we shall refer presently. The correctness of the said view is questioned in this appeal. Mr. V.J. Francis, the learned counsel for the appellant- Union submitted that inasmuch as the appellant-Union had been agitating for grant of D.A. to the daily-rated workmen at Wadala Factory at the same rate at which it is paid to monthly-rated workmen, right from November, 1965, the Tribunal was justified in awarding the relief from 1.4.1968. The restriction perceived by the Division Bench is neither sanctioned by law nor does it flow from the decisions referred to by the Division Bench. On the other hand, Shri G.B.Pai, the learned counsel for the respondent-company sup- ported the reasoning and conclusion of the Division Bench. Learned counsel submitted that an industrial dispute arises only when the workmen raise a particular dispute before the Management. No Industrial dispute can be said to arise when a dispute is raised by workmen not before the Management but before the. Government. The learned counsel contended on the above basis that the so-called dispute which was referred by the Government ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d its exercise. It is one thing to say that the Tribunal has no power to grant such relief and it is an altogether different thing to say that in a given case it ought not to grant such relief. We are only emphasizing the aspect of power. Whether in a given case relief should be granted with effect from a date anterior to the date of raising the dispute is a matter for the Tribunal to decide in the facts and circumstances of that case. Now let us examine whether any decision of this Court supports Mr. Pai's contention. The first decision relied upon by him is in Jhagrakhand Collieries (Private) Ltd. and another v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal. Dhanbad and others, 1960 (2) Labour Law Journal 71. The observations relied upon are at page 77 of the Report which read thus: "Besides, the Appellate Tribunal has failed to consider the fact that the present demand was made for the first time in September 1952. The industrial tribunal had considered this question and had definitely found that notwithstanding the suggestion by the respondents to the contrary there was no reliable evidence to show that this demand had-been specifically and clearly made prior to 27 Septemb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dispute nor does it appear that the Government had referred any such claim for adjudication by the Tribunal. In this case, it may be remembered, not only the demand raised on 19.3.73 was for extending the said benefit with effect from 15.11.1965, the reference by government was also in the same terms. In the circumstances, the reference to the practice of Industrial Tribunals can not be understood as a legal proposition that the Tribunal has no power or jurisdiction to grant relief with effect from a date earlier to the date of demand even where such demand is raised and referred to it by government. It needs no emphasis that a Judgment should be understood in the light of the facts of that case and no more should be read into it than what it actually says. The third decision relied upon is an unreported decision of this Court in Workmen of National Tobacco Co. of India Ltd. v. Messrs National Tobacco Co. of India Ltd. (Civil Appeal No. 852 of 1966 disposed of on 18.10.1968). The Judgment was delivered by Bhargava, J. on behalf of J.M. Shelat, J. himself and C.A. Vaidialingam. J. The observations relied upon occur towards the end of the judgment and read thus: "Apart from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the date of the reference of the dispute by the Government to the Tribunal". No contention was urged that the award should be made effective from a date anterior to the date of raising the dispute nor does it appear that that was a case where the demand raised by the workmen was for extending the benefit with effect from an anterior date. Therefore, there was no occasion for this Court to consider the question now raised. When the issue relating to the power of the Tribunal to grant a relief or benefit with effect from a date anterior to the date of raising the dispute was not at all raised or considered by the Court, it would not be proper to read the said observations as negativing the said contention. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the observations aforesaid do not support the contention urged by Shri Pai. So far as the facts of the present case are concerned, it must be remembered that the Labour Union had raised this dispute with the Management as far back as 2.11.1965. Conciliation was taken up by Conciliation Officer and the Conciliation Board. The Board had reported failure as far back as 15.3.1967. It is the said demand which was raised by the Uni ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fit claimed by them only from the date of the raising of the fresh demand. It was perfectly open to them to raise a demand, subsequent to the said order, claiming the benefit with effect from a date anterior to the date of raising the demand. Mr. Pai then submitted that the demand raised by the workmen on 26.4.1968 cannot be said to raise an industrial dispute inasmuch as an industrial dispute arises only when the demand is submitted to the Management. A demand by workmen addressed to the Government can never constitute, an industrial dispute, he submits. He, therefore, says that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to award the benefit with effect from 1.4.1968. Reliance is placed upon the decision of this Court in The Sindhu Resettlement Corporation Lid v., The Industrial Tribunal of Gujarat & Ors., [1968] 1 SCR 515. In that case the contention urged by the Management was that inasmuch as the workmen did not raise any dispute with respect to reinstatement and because the dispute raised by them related only to payment of retrenchment compensation, the Government had no power or justification for making a reference relating to reinstatement. It is in that connection that the following ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... far back as November 1965. Conciliation was attempted but failed. It is then that the workmen submitted a demand before the Government and the Government made a reference on 5.7.1968. That reference was no doubt set aside by the High Court but we do not know the basis of the said decision. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the workmen were left free to raise a fresh dispute with reference to the "same demands", which they actually did on 19.3.1973. They expressly claimed the benefit retrospectively from 15.11.1965. We are, therefore, unable to see how the Observations in Sindhu help the Management in this case. For the above reasons, we are of the opinion that the Division Bench was not right in holding that the Industrial Tribunal had no power to grant the relief claimed by the Workmen with effect from a date anterior to 19.3.1973 (the date on which the fresh demand was raised) notwithstanding the fact that the said demand specifically claimed the benefit from an anterior date i.e. 15.11.1965, and. which demand was referred to it by the Government. For the above reasons, the appeal is allowed and the Judgment and Order of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
