CHAIRMAN CUM MD METALLURGICAL AND ENGG CONSULTANTS INDIA LIMITED Vs. GENERAL SECRETARY MECON NON EXECUTIVE EMPLOYEES UNION VISAKHAPATNAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Metallurgical and Engineering Consultants India Limited, Visakhapatnam (herein after referred to as 'the Management') has filed this writ petition being aggrieved by the judgment and Award of the Industrial Tribunal Cum labour Court, Visakliapatnam dated 13-4-1998 in ID No.321/1994 and MP Nos.l/95{c), 2/95(c), 3/95(c), 4/95(c), 5/95(c), 6/95(c), 7/95(c) and 8/95(c) and MP Nos.12/95, 13/95, 14/95, 15/95, 16/95 and 17/95. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners strenuously contended that the impugned judgment and order of the Tribunal is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction and the same is liable to be set aside. He relied upon certain judgments. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents-employees strenuously supported the Award.

(2.) In order to appreciate the rival contentions, I think it appropriate to summarily note the findings of the Tribunal.

(3.) The Tribunal has held that out of 30 workmen, on whose behalf a dispute was filed, only 11 workmen are entitled to relief of reinstatement and directed the Management to reinstate them into service with back wages and continuity of service and the disputes relating to other workmen have been dismissed. From reading of the judgment, it appears that earlier workers had filed a writ petition before this Court in WP No.3349/1989, in which this Court commended for conciliation proceedings. As the Management did not comply with the directions of this Court, workers again, filed a writ petition in WP No.10472/91. In the meanwhile, Management filed a writ appeal against the orders of the learned single Judge in WP No.3349/1989. Both the writ appeal and the tatter writ petition were heared by the Division Bench and a common order was passed, directing the appropriate Government to make a reference to the Tribunal. Consequently, a reference was made by the State Government to the Tribunal, which was registered as ID No.321/ 1994. Meanwhile, some of the workers, including the 11 workers, who were respondents in this case were retrenched. In those circumstances, those 11 workers along with others filed miscellaneous petitions, complaining the violation of their service conditions in retrenching them from service, without permission of the Tribunal or other competitive authority under Section 33(1) and (2), read with Section 33(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short 'the Act'). The Tribunal considered the ID No.321/1994 along with the miscellaneous petitions filed by the workers and ultimately held that reference made by the State Government was incompetent on the ground that the Management in question is a Central Government undertaking and as such, the State Government was not competent to make a reference and consequently dismissed the ID No.321/94. By treating the miscellaneous petitions as the disputes, the Tribunal allowed those petitions of the workers, directing the Management to reinstate them. The order of dismissal of the dispute in ID No.321/ 1994 has not been challenged by any person and the same has become final. Therefore, the Counsels on both sides confined their arguments regarding the order passed on miscellaneous petitions only.