S DASARATHY Vs. MYSORE ELECTRICITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are employed as Junior Engineers in the Mysore State Electricity Board which is the respondent in the above writ petitions.

(2.) On three references made by the State Government under S.10(l) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter called the Act, to the Additional Industrial Tribunal in Mysore at Bangalore an award was passed by the said Tribunal on 17-10-1967. The said award was published by the Order of the Government in the Mysore Gaztte dt.26-10-1967. The respondent in order to give effect to the Award confirmed the petitioners in the post of Junior Engineers with effect from 26-5-1968. The petitioner in WP.2225 1969 whom we shall refer to as the first petitioner and the petitioner in WP.4100[1969 whom we shall refer to as the second petitioner, have in these writ petitions under Art.226 of the Constitution, sought a direction to the respondent to make an order to the effect that the petitioners have become permanent Junior Engineers with effect from 1-43-1963 and 1-7-1962 respectively. According to the case of the petitioners, on a true and correct interpretation of the Award, they are entitled to confirmation with effect from the aforesaid dates. Learned Counsel for the respondent-Board has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petitions. The objection was that what the petitioners are seeking by way of relief in these writ petitions, is the enforcement of an Award made under the Act and that since the Act has provided the mode of enforcement of an Award made under the Act, they are not entitled to seek the enforcement of the Award under Art.226 of the Constitution. Learned Counsel for the respondent invited our attention to S.29 of the Act which provides for imposing punishment on any person who commits a breach of any term of any settlement or award which is binding on him under the Act. S.33C (2) of the Act provides for the mode of recovery of any due to a workman from an employer under a settlement or an award by making an application to a Labour Court. S.36A provides that if in the opinion of the appropriate Government any difficulty or doubt arises as to the interpretation of any provision of an award, it may refer the question to such Labour Court Tribunal or National Tribunal as it may think fit. In the instant case the respondent does not concede that the Board has not implemented the award. The dispute between the parties is one copcerning the interpretation of one of the terms of the award As already stated, according to the petitioners they are entitled to be confirmed with effect from the dates mentioned above, but, according to the respondent, they have been confirmed rightly with effect from 26-5-1968. If we are to give relief under Art.226, we have to consider one of the disputed terms of the Award.

(3.) In K.M.Mukherjee v. The Secretary and Treasurer of the State Bank of India AIR. 1968 Cal. 59 it was held by the High Court of Calcutta, that- the award of an Industrial Tribunal is the decision of an industrial adjudication by a statutory tribunal and can have no more statutory force than the decree of a Civil Court. Either may be executed or otherwise implemented in the manner laid down in the relevant law, but it cannot be enforced by the prerogative writ of mandamus as an instrument having the force of law of itself." With respect, we are in entire agreement with the statement of law by D. Basu, J., in the above decision.