COZ AND KINGS AGENTS LTD Vs. THEIR WORKMEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The main question for decision relates to the construction of sub-section (5) of Section 19 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which has to be read with sub-section (3) thereof. These are as follows:

(2.) The petitioner employer dismissed three workmen represented by the respondent union in 1966. The first reference to the Labour Court made in May 1967 as to whether the termination of their services was unlawful and unjustified was rejected by the Labour Court in 1971 on the ground that the reference was incompetent inasmuch as no industrial dispute existed between the parties because the workmen had not made a demand for reinstatement on the employer and the said demand had not been rejected by the employer before the reference was made. Accordingly the demand for reinstatement was made by the workmen in 1972 and a second reference was made by the Government to the Labour Court with the same terms of reference, namely, whether the termination of these workmen was illegal and/or unjustified. The reference was answered in the affirmative by the Labour Court by the award dated 1-5-1975 at Annexure A to the writ petition. The Labour Court, however, did not grant the relief of reinstatement to the workmen. Instead it granted 50 per cent of the wages to each of them from his respective date of dismissal till the workman got alternative employment or till the date of the award if he remained unemployed till then.

(3.) The present writ petition challenges the validity of the award on various grounds but Shri G. B. Pai, learned counsel for the petitioner, in his oral argument urged only the following three grounds of attack, namely: (1) Though the award of 1971 did not impose a continuing obligation on the parties, it was an award which could be given effect to within the meaning of sub-section (5). It was, therefore, an award covered by sub-section (3) and had to be in operation for a certain period of time. It could be terminated only by a notice given under sub-section (6). Since no such notice was given, the award continued to be in operation. A second award could not, therefore, be made. The award of 1975 was, therefore, illegal and void. (2) The demand for reinstatement was not made by the workmen till 1972 and the Labour Court was not justified in awarding them compensation for back wages from 1966 onwards; and (3) The onus to show that the workmen had not obtained alternative employment was on the workmen which they did not discharge. Further the employer was not allowed to adduce additional evidence to show that the workmen had obtained alternative employment and they are, therefore, not entitled to back wages. Let us consider these contentions seriatim.