C RAMANUJAM Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER prays for a writ of Certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the award dated 31.7.1995 in complaint No.5 of 90 on the file of the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Madras and quash that portion of the Award depriving the petitioner entire back wages and direct the second respondent management to pay to the petitioner entire back wages and attendant benefits.

(2.) IN view of the nature of the disposal of the writ petition, it is not necessary to go into the details of the charges against the petitioner which ended in the removal from service. On the complaint filed by the petitioner under Section 33-A of the INdustrial Disputes Act, 1947, the INdustrial Tribunal held that the worker was bound to opt for either of the two options viz., he should either get reinstatement with no back wages or only back wages without reinstatement. The award was passed directing the management to reinstate the complainant with continuity of service, without back wages and attendant benefits. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition.

(3.) I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the management. It is settled proposition of law that the Supreme Court while interpreting law, it is open to the Supreme Court to declare the law prospectively under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. However,if the Supreme Court does not specifically lay down in the judgment itself that it will have only prospective effect, it is not open to any party to contend that the judgment cannot apply to a case, which arose for consideration prior to the declaration of law by the Supreme court. Unless and otherwise the Supreme Court declares it positively in the judgment itself that it will apply only prospectively, it is not possible to infer that the judgment of the Supreme Court cannot be applied to a case, which arose for consideration before the said judgment. In BABURAM vs. C.C.JACOB AND OTHERS ([1999] 3 Supreme Court Cases 362), the Supreme Court observed that the purpose of prospective declaration is to avoid reopening of settled issues and to prevent multiplicity of proceedings. Therefore in the absence of a specific declaration to give effect to the judgment only prospectively, the judgment is bound to apply to pending cases also. In JAIPUR ZILA SAHAKARI BHOOMI VIKAS BANK LTD. VS. RAM GOPAL SHARMA AND OTHERS ([2002] 2 Supreme Court Cases 244) there is no such specific declaration by the Supreme Court that the said judgment will operate only prospectively. Therefore I am unable to sustain the contention of the learned counsel for the management.