SIDDANNA Vs. BEML LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In a proceeding under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the Act'), registered as S.L.A. No. 15/2011 in I.D. No. 69 of 1970, petitioner when arraigned as the opposite party, filed I.A. No. 2 under Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 to defer cross-examination of the Management witness until consideration of I.A. No. 3 also under Section 151 of CPC to dismiss the Serial Application as not maintainable. It was contended that under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act, payment of one month wage is not a part and parcel of one and the same transaction of filing of the Serial Application. It was further contended that petitioner was drawing wage of Rs. 34,901.13 while the respondent-management had paid Rs. 33,589/- and hence a deficit of Rs. 1,312/-. The Industrial Tribunal having regard to the question as to, "whether or not there was a short payment of the monthly wage while filing the Serial Application invoking Section 33(2)(b) of the Act?" which required to be answered only after a regular trial and not based upon the affidavit of parties, rejected I.A. No. 3 and as a consequence I.A. No. 2, by order dated 2-8-2013. Hence these petitions.

(2.) In the first place, there can be no more dispute that the quantum of wages paid to the petitioner along with the filing of the Serial Application invoking Section 33(2)(b) of the Act, when disputed on the premise of deficit in the said payment, requires adjudication i.e., a trial, whence parties would lead evidence to establish their respective cases, while the respondent-Management would be able to prove that the wage payable is only Rs. 33,589/-, the workman in his evidence could prove that the wage payable is Rs. 34,901.13, whereafter alone, the Industrial Tribunal could come to a conclusion as to which of the case is acceptable, no exception can be taken to the reasons, findings and conclusions arrived at by the Tribunal in rejecting I.A. No. 3 and I.A. No. 2.

(3.) Secondly, learned Counsel's submission that the said objection could be treated as a preliminary issue, and evidence be recorded on the said issue, is unacceptable. In a Serial Application, it is for the Industrial Tribunal adjudicating the dispute to frame issues that arise for decision making based upon the pleadings of the parties and try the same. In fact in D.P. Maheshwari v. Delhi Administration and Others, 1984 AIR(SC) 153 , the Apex Court deprecated the tendency of Courts framing preliminary issues and when orders are passed, challenging the said orders without awaiting the final decision in the disputes, more appropriately labour disputes. In that view of the matter, even if a preliminary issue is framed and an order is passed, either of the party who is aggrieved, will have to await the final decision on the merits of the case. If the petitioner so desires that the Industrial Tribunal should frame a preliminary issue, it is open for him to make necessary application, and if so done, there is no reason to believe that the Industrial Tribunal would not consider the said application and pass orders in accordance with law. Petitions devoid of merit, are rejected, however keeping open all contentions.