SENIOR REGIONAL MANAGER HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL I HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The management of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL) has filed this writ appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and order of the learned single Judge dated 12-4-2001 in WP No. 15099 of 2000 dismissing the writ petition. In the writ petition, the management assailed the validity of the award dated 17-12-1999 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-I, Hyderabad in ID No. 20 of 1998. By the said award, the Industrial Tribunal directed the Management to regularise services of 26 workmen mentioned in Ex.W2 list against the existing vacancies applying rules of reservation in the order of seniority in the respective categories and if there are no vacancies, then to regularise their services as and when the vacancies arise. Further, the Industrial Tribunal directed that those 26 workmen are entitled to pay scales on par with regular employees with effect from 1-12-1999 and they should be paid arrears also.

(2.) In the writ petition, the Management has not only questioned the validity of the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal as regards the relief of regularisation in services granted to 26 workmen, but also direction to the Management to pay wages to those 26 workmen in terms of pay scales on par with regular employees from 1-12-1999. Although in the writ appeal also, the management has questioned the validity of the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal in its entirety, as we could see from the Memorandum of writ appeal, at the time of argument, the attack of the learned Counsel against the award of the Industrial Court mainly against the part of the award directing the Management to pay wages to workmen concerned in terms of pay-scales on part with regular employees with effect from 1-12-1999 and not so much against the other part of the award directing regularisation of services of the workmen obviously because the management cannot have any legitimate grievance either in law or on facts against the award of the Industrial Tribunal directing regularisation of the services of the workmen. In our considered opinion, the findings records by the Industrial Tribunal as regarded the relief of regularisation are well-founded and they are based on acceptable substantive legal evidence and therefore, they do not call for any interference by this Court.

(3.) The main contention of Ms. Uma, learned Counsel for the Management before us is that the Industrial Tribunal in directing that the workmen are entitled to pay-scales on par with regular employees from 1-12-1999 went beyond the terms of reference as well as the points framed for adjudication and therefore, that part of the award is a nullity in the eye of law. The learned Counsel would point out that what was referred to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication was whether the services of 26 workmen should be regularised or not and not the question whether those workmen are entitled to pay scales on par with regular employees from 1-12-1999. The learned Counsel would draw our attention to the points framed by the Industrial Tribunal in para (8) for determination and the two points raised by the Industrial Tribunal do not relate to the entitlement of the workmen to claim pay-scale on par with regular employees. The learned Counsel would alternatively contend that the question whether the workmen are entitled to pay-scales on part with the regular employees on the ground that the duties and functions discharged by them are similar to those performed by the regular employees, is a pure question of fact and such a question could be resolved only on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence that may be led by the parties in the trial and in the instant case, there was absolutely no opportunity for the management to show that the duties and functions performed by the workmen concerned are not similar to the duties and functions performed by the regular employees. Looking from that angle also, the learned Counsel would maintain, the direction to pay wages to the workmen concerned on par with regular employees cannot be sustained.