CARONA LIMITED Vs. SITARAM ATMARAM GHAG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner employer has invoked the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court to impugn the order dated 9th September, 1999 passed by the Industrial Court in Complaint (ULP) No. 377 to 557 of 1998 by individual workman.

(2.) IT is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the said order is liable to be set aside amongst others on the following grounds:- (a) That a complaint had been filed by the recognized Union being Complaint No. 285/98 which has been disposed of by another Member of the Industrial Court by judgment and order dated November 17, 1999. Once the recognized union has filed a complaint another complaint at the instance of individual employees would not be maintainable, more so considering that it was the recognized Union which had first filed a complaint; (b) It is next contended that the Industrial Court acted without jurisdiction in directing the petitioners to pay both VRS compensation as also Wages as set out in the order. Once VRS wages was directed to be paid, it is contended that the question of payment of back wages for any particular period would not arise. In the instant case most of the respondents have by depositing the cheques invoked the VRS scheme and consequently the question of wages for any period would not arise; (c) At any rate it is contended that the Industrial Court could not have directed payment of gratuity. It is contended that gratuity is a payment under the Payment of Gratuity Act. That Act, it is contended, has created the right and provided the remedy for its enforcement. Once it is so on failure to pay gratuity due under the Act it is recovery of gratuity would only be under the Act. In this context the Industrial Court by exercising jurisdiction under the MRTU and PULP Act acted without jurisdiction. It is also pointed out that in another complaint filed by the recognized union the other member of the Industrial Court, has correctly not directed payment of gratuity, but has directed the union therein to move the Authorities for payment under the Payment of Gratuity Act; (d) In so far as interest is concerned, it is contended that the industrial Court merely proceeded to grant the interest without considering whether interest was due and payable and/or at which rate. In the other case it is contended that interest has been directed to be paid at 12% per annum. Therefore, it is contended that direction for payment of interest would disclose non-application of mind and consequently the order to that extent is liable to be set aside and (e) it is contended that the Industrial Court would have had no jurisdiction to hear and decide the complaint as proceedings under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, S. I. C. (S. P.) Act for short, has been filed and the petitioners have already been declared to be a sick Industry by an order dated 18th May, 1998 by B. I. F. R. In these circumstances it is contended that the order of the Industrial Court is without jurisdiction and (f) It is also contended that the respondents being ex-workmen, no complaint is maintainable as the dispute does not pertain to their dismissal, termination or like i. e. the dispute is not an individual dispute.

(3.) BEFORE I proceed to deal with the contentions and whether the petitioner has made out a prima facie case for admission, let me briefly advert to the facts, which may be relevant for the purpose of considering the issues that arise in the petition. The petitioners by letter dated August 7, 1996 forwarded to the Carona Employees Union a Scheme for Voluntary Retirement along with an appeal dated 7th August, 1996. The scheme provided amongst others as under: -. "all his/her legal dues such as :