DUNCANS INDUSTRIESLTD Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri J.N. Tiwari, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri S. Chatterjee for Duncans Industries Limited, the petitioners; and Sri K.P. Agarwal, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Bushra Marium for I.E.L.N Supervisors Association -respondents.

(2.) IN the writ petition No. 12468 of 2002, the Duncans' Industries Limited have prayed for quashing the Award dated 29 -4 -1999 (published on 7 -1 -2002, by Industrial Tribunal -Ill, U.P. Kanpur) in Adjudication Case No. 11/1988. By this award, the Tribunal has returned the finding, that the concerned employees are workmen within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act 1947 and that the decision of the employers to retire them at the age of 58 years as against the workmen in pursuance of the Registered Settlement entered into between the employers and the workmen at 60 years, is not legal and proper, and thus the claimants are entitled to retirement at the age of 60 years after January, 1999.

(3.) BEFORE proceedings to decide these questions, the objections with regard to publication of the award require consideration. The industrial dispute, giving rise to these proceedings at the instance Deputy Superintendents/Supervisors, was referred for adjudication as Adjudication Case No. 11/1988. Sri Pushkar Kumar Sharma, Presiding Officer of the Tribunal gave an award and sent the same for publication to the State Government on 30 -7 -1999, under Section -6 of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act 1947. Before its publication, the employers filed an application before the Tribunal with a prayer that the matter be re -heard. It is alleged that on this application, the Tribunal called back the award on 30 -7 -1999 and the parties were noticed for rehearing. The Tribunal heard both the parties and resubmitted the award to the State Government, on 16 -6 -2000. This award, it is alleged, was not published. It is contended that the adjudication proceedings are treated to be pending till 30 days after publication, when the award becomes effective, and that on submitting the award the Tribunal does not become functus officio. It has power to amend, cancel and withdraw the award. Relying upon judgment in Grindleys Bank, 1981 (42) FLR 88 and the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Badri Prasad Hari Prasad, 1984 (48) FLR 315. it is submitted by Sri J. N. Tiwari that the Tribunal did not become fauctus officio even after submitting the award to the State Government for publication.