BHARAT PORCELAIN Vs. LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) What is challenged in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is the order dated 30.9.1982 passed by the Labour Court, Rohtak, whereby the applications filed by respondents 2 to 38 under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the 'Act') were allowed and the monetary benefits due to them computed.

(2.) Facts which lie in a narrow compass may first be noticed.

(3.) Respondents 2 to 38 were in the employment of M/s Bharat Porcelain Limited, Sonepat (for short the 'management') and their services were terminated in the year 1989. This gave rise to an industrial dispute and the parties agreed to refer the same to the arbitration of Shri S.N. Vats under Section 10-A of the Act. By his award dated 1.3.1971 published in the Haryana Government Gazette on 19.3.1971 the Arbitrator held the termination of the services of the workmen illegal and directed their reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages. It is alleged that after the award the workmen-respondents went to the gate of the factory to report for duty but they were neither allowed to join duty nor paid their back wages in terms of the award. The management, according to the respondents, refused to implement the award and it was then that the workmen filed the applications under Section 33-C(2) of the Act out of which the present petition has arisen claiming their back wages and other monetary benefits which, according to them, were due from the management including provident fund, bonus etc. The applications were filed in August, 1971 but the management successfully evaded filing of the written statement on one pretext or the other for a sufficiently long period. Meanwhile the management filed civil writ petition 2661 of 1971 in this Court challenging the validity of the award which was dismissed. Thereafter, it filed Civil Appeal 1434 of 1971 in the Supreme Court against the decision of this Court which was also dismissed on 28.9.1972. It was then that the written statement to the applications was filed in December, 1972. All possible objections were raised to the maintainability of the applications and even though the award had been upheld upto the Apex Court the management chose to challenge the same as a nullity in the present applications as well thereby denying its liability to pay any amount to the workmen on the basis of that award. From the pleadings of the parties the Labour Court framed the following issues:-