M.M. JOSEPH Vs. LABOUR COURT AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A question of seminal importance, as to whether under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the "I.D.Act"), the Labour Court is empowered to award interest, which has not been specifically granted in an award passed under the I.D. Act, is raised herein. When computation in terms of money is sought on the basis of a legal entitlement or on the basis of an award or settlement, and there is no specific provision to grant interest, could the principles of equity be invoked When the claim is based on an award, will not the grant of interest be regulated by the award and will not an award; silent on that aspect be deemed to be a refusal of interest The question is raised on the well established principle, that the Labour Court, under Section 33C(2), exercises power akin to an execution court as contemplated under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 [for brevity "CPC"].

(2.) The background facts are that the petitioner in the writ petition was a Conductor of a stage carriage operated by the management. A checking conducted on a particular day, revealed ticket-less travel of two passengers. The Conductor was charge-sheeted and found guilty in an enquiry and imposed punishment of dismissal from service. On a reference made, as to the justifiability of such dismissal, the enquiry conducted against the workman was sustained. When the matter was taken for final hearing, on the question of proportionality of punishment, an endorsement was made that the parties had settled the dispute. Later, the workman resiled from the said settlement and filed an application for considering the question on merits since the workman contended that he was not aware of the consequences and the full implication of the compromise terms.

(3.) The Industrial Tribunal, Kollam rescued itself from the case and it was then transferred to the Industrial Tribunal, Alappuzha. The said Tribunal considered the issue on merits and found that there was absolutely no case of misappropriation and the ticket-less travel could not, at all, be attributed to the Conductor. The Tribunal found that there was undue rush on that day, in the stage carriage and the conductor could not be faulted. The Tribunal, under Section 11A, interfered with the punishment of dismissal and modified it to one of warning. The relief granted was in the following terms: