INDIAN BANK Vs. CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present case a dispute was raised between the workmen and the employer. Ultimately, the impugned award was passed on July 13, 1998 on the basis of an agreement between the parties incorporating the terms thereof. From the award, it was pointed out that the counsel for the employer had no objection regarding the passing of the award in terms of the conditions contained in Annexure "B" (Ex. W/2) to the application for compromise. The award had incorporated the terms of compromise as part of the award (Annexure "A") after having examined and found the said terms and conditions as legal and fair. It is now being challenged on the ground that this award is not an award in the eye of law, since it has not adjudicated the alleged dispute. In the alleged dispute, there was no relationship of employer and employee and as such, there was no industrial dispute within the meaning of Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and as such, there could not be any valid reference at all.

(2.) According to Mr. Bimal Chatterjee, unless there is a determination of the dispute award by suggestion of parties is not an award. He relied on the decision reported in Sital v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal, 1969-II-LLJ-215 (MP-DB), Andhra Handloom Weavers' Co-operative Society v. State of A.P., 1963-II-LLJ-488 (AP), All India Insurance Employees' Union v. LIC Higher Grade Assistant's Association, 1973-II-LLJ-288 (Mad-DB), Workmen employed in 32 Textile Mills v. Management of Dhanalakshmi, Maharani Mill Kamdar Union v. N.L. Vyas, 1959-II-LLJ-172 (Bom-DB), Cox & Kings (Agents) Ltd. v. Their Workmen and Ors., in support of his contention. He had also contended that unless the dispute is resolved, there cannot be any award. He had further contended that admittedly the workmen were alleged to be the canteen staff, who were not the workers of the bank and as such, there could not be a dispute within the meaning of Section 2(k) of the Act and that the alleged workmen were not workmen within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act and as such, there could not be any reference within the meaning of Section 10(4) of the said Act. Therefore, the Industrial Tribunal could not have assumed jurisdiction. He contended further that since these facts are apparent on the face of the record, it is not necessary to bring anything on record and as such, the alleged award should be set aside. Mr. Chatterjee has also relied on some other decisions to support the character of canteen workers when they could be treated as workmen. According to him, there is no such material to establish that these canteen workers were workmen of the Bank.

(3.) Mr. P.S. Sengupta, learned counsel for the workmen on the other hand, pointed out that a writ petition can be maintained only if a person is aggrieved. Unless it is shown that the bank is aggrieved by the Award, it cannot maintain this writ petition. He referred to various annexures annexed to the writ petition to show that the bank was never aggrieved with the award; on the other hand, the bank had, accepted the award after the award was passed and had been agreeing with the workmen with the terms, on the basis whereof the award was passed, even before the award was passed. Therefore, the writ petition cannot be, maintained. Since there was a final adjudication and determination, therefore, the award is very much binding and the decisions cited by Mr. Chatterjee are all distinguishable and do not apply in the facts and circumstances of this case. An award can be based on compromise, provided it is determined by the Tribunal that it is legal and fair and that the terms of the compromise have been incorporated in the award itself. He had referred to the definition of the word, "award" under Section 2(b) of the Act and pointed out that as soon as there is a final determination of the dispute, it becomes an award. According to him, in the present case, the dispute has since been resolved between parties and, therefore, this was an award. He then contended that the question, that there was no relationship within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act and that the dispute was not an Industrial dispute, cannot be gone into before this Court at this stage, unless this question was raised before the Tribunal. Unless such a question is raised, the Tribunal suo motu cannot enter into such question. Once the workmen without raising any objection had accepted the reference, it cannot raise this question subsequently. He had also relied on certain decisions, to which reference shall be made at the appropriate stage. In such circumstances, he prayed that the writ petition should be dismissed.