WORKMEN OF KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT INSURANCE DEPARTMENT BANGALORE Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER PRINCIPAL INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE workmen of K. G. I. D. Employees Union have presented this petition challenging the validity and legality of the award passed by the 1st respondent-Tribunal in Industrial Dispute No. 32 of 1994, dated 26th September, 1997, urging various legal contentions.

(2.) THE various legal contentions urged in this petition need not be adverted to in this order as the tribunal has rejected the reference on two main grounds, namely, the points of dispute referred by the State Government to it for its adjudication conflict with the demand made by the Union, therefore, the demand of the workmen is beyond the scope of the reference, hence the reference has to be treated as bad. The 2nd ground on which the reference is rejected by the 1st respondent-Tribunal is that the claim of the Union with regard to the payment of Bonus from 1980 and its demand is dated 8-9-1992 as could be noticed from the factual report submitted by the Conciliation Officer to the State Government for exercise of its power to make a reference. Therefore, the demand is for the period from 1980 which was raised in the year 1992 after a lapse of 12 years for which there is no explanation was offered by the Union for allowing the long lapse of delay. Therefore on that ground also reference was rejected by the Tribunal.

(3.) THE learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Union, Mr. L. Leelakrishnan, submits placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Management of M/s, Express Newspapers (Private) Limited, Madras v The Workers and Others, he has placed reliance at paragraph 19, in support of the case of the petitioner. He has further placed reliance upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court, following the judgment of the Apex Court referred to above. In the case of Workmen of M/s. Mysore Paper Mills Limited v Management of M/s. Mysore Paper Mills limited and Another, at paragraph 11, law has been succinctly laid down, which supports the case of the Union. Therefore, the learned Counsel submits that in view of the law laid down in the aforesaid cases, the ground for rejection of the reference by the Tribunal is wholly unsustainable in law, hence the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ certiorari.