TATA TEA LTD Vs. GENERAL SECRETARY DEVICOLAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The management in I.D. No. 18/1997 before the Industrial Tribunal, Idukki, is the petitioner herein, which is a tea estate. They are challenging Ext.P10 award passed by the Tribunal in that industrial dispute on the ground that the Tribunal has travelled beyond the scope of the issue referred for adjudication and adjudicated an issue which was not even in the contemplation of the unions appearing in this case as revealed from their claim statements and the reference order. According to the petitioner, at the time when the matter was being adjudicated by the Tribunal, the dispute which was referred for adjudication ceased to exist, since the management themselves had reversed the action which gave rise to the dispute and, therefore, there was no dispute pending for adjudication at the time of passing of the award. But the Tribunal framed another issue which was not referred for adjudication, adjudicated the same and decided in favour of the unions on that issue, which according to the petitioner, is not permissible under law, in so far as it is settled law that the Tribunal has to confine himself to the issue referred for adjudication and he cannot travel beyond the scope of the issue referred.

(2.) One of the unions in the dispute (viz., the 1st respondent herein) opposes the original petition. According to the counsel for the 1st respondent union, although the issue adjudicated by the Tribunal is not exactly the dispute referred for adjudication, the issue decided by the Tribunal is an issue intrinsically connected with the dispute referred for adjudication and, therefore, in order to obviate the necessity of the unions raising another dispute on that connected issue, the Tribunal had rightly adjudicated that dispute, which is an off shoot of the issue referred for adjudication. He would also submit that since substantial justice has been done by the Tribunal, this Court should not exercise the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the award which renders complete justice between the parties. He also points out that if that dispute had been considered by this Court, this Court also would have come to the same conclusion and, therefore, it is not necessary to interfere with the award on a technical question as to whether the issue decided was the issue actually referred for adjudication.

(3.) I have considered the rival contentions in detail.