LAKSHMINARAYANA N Vs. MANAGEMENT OF LOKA SHIKSHANA TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two Petitioners were dismissed from service during the year 1987 and they were members of Bangalore Newspapers employees' Union. This Union raised a dispute regarding the demands of the workmen in the 1st respondent, against the 1st respondent Management and the same was referred to the Industrial tribunal, Bangalore, for adjudication in I. D. No. 5/1985. The 1st respondent did not file any approval application under Section 33 (2) (B) of the Industrial Dispute Act, or sought permission from the tribunal before dismissing the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners and others filed complaints before the Tribunal and the same were numbered as complaint Nos. 3/87 and 14/87. The Tribunal tried the issue after domestic enquiry in favour of the workmen as per annexure B. The petitioners filed applications for interim relief and the Tribunal was pleased to pass an order granting 50% of the last drawn wages as an interim relief to both the petitioners as per annexure C. The Management was not complying with the interim order regularly as on 15. 9. 1995 and the interim lelief was not paid for six months continuously, the petitioners filed yet another application for enhancement of interim relief from 50% to 75% and asked for interest at 12% per annum for delayed payment. The tribunal after hearing the parties, passed an order on 7. 12. 1996 allowing the application enhancing the interim relief from 50% to 75% of the last drawn wage to both the petitioners along with other complainants and also granted 12% interest P. A on delayed payments as per Annexure D. After the order dated 7. 12. 96 the petitioners brought to the notice of the Tribunal on every day of hearing that the management was deliberately not complying with the orders of interim relief. In other words, it was pointed out that even the 50% interim relief was not being paid regularly and that it further did not comply with the order of the Tribunal enhancing the interim relief from 50% to 75% dated 7. 12. 96.

(2.) THE Management was dragging on the matter of proving the alleged misconduct by independent evidence before the Tribunal. Though the dismissal took place in the year 1987 and the complaint came to be filed in the same year, the domestic enquiry claimed to have been held was set aside in the year 1991. The Management examined one witness in support of the allegation for the first time on 29. 10. 97. So far a large number of hearings have taken place since the complaint was filed. Inspire of it, the Management is not expediting in disposing of the matter despite efforts made and the management failed to settle the matter though the misconduct is not at all serious which is only with the main object of tiring out the workers and weakening their union. It was pointed out before the tribunal that the non-compliance of the order of the Tribunal would amount to contempt of the Tribunal. In fact, applications were also filed in this behalf as per Annexure E and the management filed its objections to the said application as per Annexure F. It is contended that it was also suggested that the Tribunal had not given permission to the Management to lead evidence to comply with the order. This course could have been adopted by the Tribunal in order to put an end to the agony of the workers/petitioners who have'been struggling to get justice from 1987. But however, the Tribunal did not appreciate the sufferings of the workmen and took a different view and rejected the application. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Industrial tribunal dated 15. 12. 98 in complaint Nos. 3 and14/1987 as per annexure A these two Writ Petitions are filed.

(3.) RESPONDENT filed counter statement contending inter alia that the order passed by the Tribunal is without jurisdiction and no such direction could be issued as an interim order of relief in favour of the petitioners. The Writ Petition is not maintainable as the same is filed against the Interlocutory order passed by the Tribunal. The order passed by the Tribunal is not an award as defined under Section 2 (b) of the I. D. Act. The dispute in I. D. 5/85 is in no way connected to the respondents and points of reference referred to for adjudication. Therefore the question of seeking an approval under Section 33 (2) (B) does not arise. Though evidence has been adduced in complaint No. 3/87, for want of co-operation from the petitioners, the matter is being protracted under one pretext or the other. They somehow want the main matter to be kept alive. The Tribunal has no power to review or recall its own order passed earlier. The petition is otherwise unsustainable in law. Therefore, the respondents submit that the petition may be dismissed.