CANARA BANK STAFF UNION Vs. CANARA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Heard Forthwith. An application for relief under Section 33-C (1) of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for computation of the amounts due in terms of the Award of the Industrial Tribunal has generated litigation which the petitioner Nos. 2 to 8 can ill- afford, considering the amounts which they are entitled to Respondent No. 1 a Nationalised Bank, State within the meaning of Article 12 of the constitution of India is bent on contending that even if the applicants are entitled for any amount the procedure followed by them in moving under Section 33-C (1) of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947 was not an appropriate remedy and an application under Section 33-C (2) would be the appropriate remedy, even inspite of the earlier order by the Court dated march 15, 2004 in Writ Petition No. 2960 of 2003. Having said so a few facts may now be set out as under:

(2.) WORKMEN, of respondent No. 1 represented by the petitioner No. 1 had raised, an industrial dispute, that dispute was referred by the appropriate Government. The terms of the reference were as under: whether the action of the management of canara Bank, Mumbai in not regularising the services of Umesh Kotian and six others, all part time employees in 3/4 scale with effect from the dates indicated in the annexure, is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the said workmen are entitled. The learned Tribunal after considering the material before it was pleased to pass an Award in terms of the following order:

(3.) THE Management subsequent to the award by their letter dated September 6, 1999 addressed independently to each of the workmen entitled to the amounts under the award, enclosed a demand draft being the differential wages from the date of initial engagement till the date of regularisation, after deducting the wages already paid as full and final settlement of all claims whatsoever arising out of the Award. The Petitioner workmen by a letter addressed to the Deputy General manager dated October 9, 1999 intimated that they are regularised from the date of initial appointment commencing from August 21, 11985 on 3/4th pay scale and accordingly set out what should be the basic pay they were entitled to draw in terms of the award. It may be mentioned that 3/4th pay scale is only available if workman is a regular employee. As the management did not make payments as claimed, each of the workmen entitled, made an application under Section 33-C (1) read with rule 62 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Rules to the Regional Labour Commissioner. The amounts which the workmen would be entitled to were set out. The amount in case of petitioner umesh Kotian worked out to Rs. 26324. 80 ps. All application's were dated August 3, 2000. Respondent No. 1 filed their reply and contended firstly that the application was barred by limitation as it was not made within the time prescribed under Section 33-C (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. It was then set out that the respondent No. 1 had fully complied and implemented the Award dated November 20, 1998. In reply to the calculations made by the petitioners, it was only, set out that the calculations made are not true to the facts and are highly imaginative, inflated and not based on any record. It is also set out that the application under Section 33-C (1) would not be maintainable. Various other replies came to be filed from time to time. By an order dated march 19, 2001 a certificate came to be issued, which was challenged before this Court. That petition was allowed and the matter was remanded back for re-consideration by respondent No. 2. Reply was filed on February 2, 2002, and on October 21, 2002 a further reply was filed on behalf of the respondent No. 1 where once again the objections earlier raised, were reiterated. The petitioners filed their rejoinder to the same on October 31, 2002 and insofar as delay was concerned, it was set out that this Court had disposed of the writ petition wherein, the Award was challenged, by an order dated July 27, 1999. The certified copy of the order was made available on August 21, 1999 and the applications were filed on august 3, 2000 and therefore, within time. It is also set out, that if there is any delay, the same be condoned. The basis on which the workmen were entitled for the amounts as claimed by them, was explained. An order came to be passed on September 4, 2003. By that order, the Authority held that there is dispute between the parties regarding eligibility to claim certain claims and benefits and this could not be done under Section 33-C (1) of I. D. Act. The application was also dismissed on the ground that there was no reason furnished for delay in preferring the applications. It was noted that Award was published on October 20, 1998 which came into force on November 20, 1998. It is also set out that "the contents of the award clearly establishes the fact that nowhere the due amount is determined. Though the union has calculated the amount, the same is disputed by the management as such answer to the said question is, amount is disputed by the management and hence required to be determined and the amount to be calculated as an equivalent value of certain benefits granted by the Tribunal and incidentally there is a dispute regarding the computation of such benefits, in terms of money. "