BHAJAN LAL AND ANOTHER Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHANDIGARH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been moved by Bhajan Lal as well as Ramji Dass under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the award dated 1.3.1988 Annexure P.4 refusing to interpret the award dated 31.10.1983 Annexure P.3 and directing respondent No. 2 to treat the petitioners as T-mates with effect from 12.10.1976, i.e., the date of settlement without benefits.

(2.) The brief facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioners were appointed as Skilled Mazdoor in the Power Wing of the respondent-Bhakhra Beas Management Board, (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Board') in the year 1972 and May, 1975 respectively. They continued serving in the same capacity without interruption in their service upto 31.7.1976 and 1.8.1976 respectively, whereafter their services were terminated abruptly. They raised an industrial dispute under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity, 'the Act'). A settlement under Section 12 (3) of the Act was arrived at between the petitioners-workmen and the Board before the Conciliation Officer-cum-the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C) Chandigarh. The settlement dated 12.10.1976 was duly signed by the representatives of both the parties whereby, the Board agreed/promised to take back the petitioners within a week's time as T-mates. They were re-employed by the Board with effect from 14.10.1976 only as skilled Mazdoor. The Board retracted from the assurance given before the Assistant Labour Commissioner and refused to give them the status of Tmates. They filed an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Act before the Labour Court, Jalandhar claiming the difference between the wages of Tmates and skilled Mazdoor from 14.10.1976 to 15.12.1976 on the basis of the settlement dated 12.10.1976. Instead of honouring their commitment made in the settlement, the Board devised to defeat their claim by taking a technical plea of non-signing of the settlement by the workmen. The Labour Court, realising the limited scope of jurisdiction vested in it under Section 33(C)(2) of the Act refrained from giving the appropriate relief claimed by the workmen but at the same time advised the Board to act nobly and fulfil its promise. The petitioners were further given an option to raise an industrial dispute in case the Board failed to act upon the observations of the Court. The petitioners were served with notice dated 24.1.1978 terminating their services with effect from 28.2.1978. They were forced to again raise an industrial dispute under Section 2-A of the Act challenging their termination orders 1.8.1976 and 2.8.1976 respectively, the non-implementation of the settlement dated 12.10.1976 and also the termination dated 28.2.1978. Despite making its intentions clear in the body of the award about the non- justification of the Board in not implementing the settlement, the Labour Court forgot to record a finding on this point in the concluding paragraphs. The Board filed a writ petition in this Court challenging the order of reinstatement but the same was dismissed by this Court in limine. The Board taking advantage of the omission of the Labour Court in recording a specific finding on the second issue in the concluding paragraphs, refused to employ the petitioners as T-mates. The petitioners made a complaint to the Office of Regional Labour Commissioner (C), Chandigarh about the non-implementation of the award dated 31.10.1983. On the initiative of the Regional Labour Commissioner to bring about an understanding, both the parties agreed that the issue should be clarified by Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Chandigarh, (for short, 'the Tribunal') which gave its award. Consequently, the dispute was referred to the Tribunal under Section 36-A of the Act. The Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chandigarh vide award dated 1.3.1988 answered the reference against the workmen on the ground that if their claims of re-employment as T-mates were to be granted, it would amount to a modification of the award dated 31.10.1983 of which the Tribunal had no power/jurisdiction under Section 36-A of the Act. The awards Annexure P.3 and Annexure P.4 are illegal, perverse and against the provisions of law.

(3.) In its written statement, the Board has admitted that Bhajan Lal and Ramji Dass both daily wages workmen were disengaged with effect from 1.8.1976 and 2.8.1976 as they were engaged for specific work and on completion of work, their engagement automatically came to an end. The alleged settlement dated 12.10.1976 was invalid for want of personal attestation of the workmen as required under Rule 58 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 (hereinafter to be called as 'the Central Rules'). The Board behaved as a good employer and both the petitioners were re-engaged on daily wages with effect from 14.10.1976. There was no reason to give workmen two benefits from the invalid settlement (i) to take them back on work and (2) to give them promotion by taking them as T-mates which is of higher grade than the skilled labour on which they had been working and were disengaged on completion of work. The petitioners were not entitled to be reinstated as T-Mates as the alleged settlement was invalid. The Board had re-employed the petitioners as daily wagers. There is no question of giving them promoted rank of T-Mates on which they had never worked. Lastly, it has been prayed that the writ petition may be dismissed with costs.