1. Computation of special assistants allowance under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2000 Supreme(SC) 1906
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.N.Variava : S.R.Babu
Bank Of India
Versus
Presiding Officer
Case No. : 7752 of 1996
Date of Decision : 11/29/00
Advocates Appeared: Pal G.B.
Important Points
Under Section 19(6) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, an award remains binding on the parties even after the period specified in Section 19(3) expires, unless the parties mutually intimate their intention to terminate its binding effect.
Subject
Labour and Industrial Law - Industrial Disputes
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 19(3), 19(6) and 33-C(2) - Industrial Disputes (Banking Companies) Decision Act, 1955 - Section 4 - Computation of allowances - Binding nature of awards - An award shall continue to be binding on parties even after the period stated under Section 19(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act expires, in view of Section 19(6) - An award does not cease to be in force until the parties intimate to each other about their intention to do so. (Para 5)
(B) Service conditions - Applicability of awards - Where a Bipartite Settlement explicitly states that certain awards shall govern service conditions unless modified by the settlement, such awards continue to apply. (Para 5)
Facts of the case:
An employee filed an application for the computation of special assistants allowance for the years 1983 to 1986. The Labour Court computed the amount payable, and this order was subsequently affirmed by the High Court. The appellant challenged the decision, contending that the awards governing the conditions of service had ceased to apply in 1966.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that under the provisions of Section 19(6) of the Industrial Disputes Act, an award remains binding after the expiry of the period mentioned in Section 19(3), provided the parties have not intimated their intention to terminate the arrangement. Furthermore, it was noted that the Bipartite Settlement specifically incorporated the awards as governing service conditions except where modified.
Issues: Whether the awards governing service conditions ceased to apply upon the expiry of a certain period and the legal effect of Section 19(6) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Ratio Decidendi: An award continues to be binding on parties beyond the period specified under Section 19(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act per Section 19(6), unless parties mutually agree to end it. The court also clarified that a statement of fact in a previous judgment does not constitute a legal pronouncement.
Result: Appeal disposed of with clarification on the question of law.
(B) Service conditions - Applicability of awards - Where a Bipartite Settlement explicitly states that certain awards shall govern service conditions unless modified by the settlement, such awards continue to apply. (Para 5)
Facts of the case:
An employee filed an application for the computation of special assistants allowance for the years 1983 to 1986. The Labour Court computed the amount payable, and this order was subsequently affirmed by the High Court. The appellant challenged the decision, contending that the awards governing the conditions of service had ceased to apply in 1966.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that under the provisions of Section 19(6) of the Industrial Disputes Act, an award remains binding after the expiry of the period mentioned in Section 19(3), provided the parties have not intimated their intention to terminate the arrangement. Furthermore, it was noted that the Bipartite Settlement specifically incorporated the awards as governing service conditions except where modified.
Issues: Whether the awards governing service conditions ceased to apply upon the expiry of a certain period and the legal effect of Section 19(6) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Ratio Decidendi: An award continues to be binding on parties beyond the period specified under Section 19(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act per Section 19(6), unless parties mutually agree to end it. The court also clarified that a statement of fact in a previous judgment does not constitute a legal pronouncement.
Result: Appeal disposed of with clarification on the question of law.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- labour and industrial law
-
practice and procedure
-
jurisdiction of labour court
- computation under section 33-c(2) (Para 2)
-
jurisdiction of labour court
Table of Contents
2. Dispute over whether Sastri/Desai awards governed service conditions; appellant contended award ceased in 1966. (Para 2 , 4 )
3. Award continues binding under Section 19(6) of ID Act until parties intimate intention to terminate. (Para 5 )
4. An industrial award does not cease to bind parties under Section 19(6) unless they give mutual notice of termination. (Para 5 , 6 )
5. Appeal disposed with clarification on law but without upsetting the Labour Court's order. (Para 6 , 7 )
6. Does an industrial award cease to be binding after the expiry of the period under Section 19(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act?
No. Under Section 19(6), an award continues to bind the parties until they intimate each other of their intention to terminate it. (Para 5 )
7. Did the High Court err in holding that the Desai award ceased to apply in 1966?
Yes. The High Court was not justified because the awards continue in force under Section 19(6) until the parties give notice of termination. (Para 5 , 6 )
8. What is the effect of the Bipartite Settlement on the Sastri and Desai awards?
The Bipartite Settlement expressly provides that the Sastri and Desai awards govern service conditions except where modified by the settlement. (Para 5 )
(1) THIS appeal is by special leave. Respondent No. 3 is employed as a clerk in the Regional Collection Centre, Kanpur.
(2) HE filed an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for computation of special assistants allowance at Rs. 456 on the basis of the two third months rotation in a year for the years 1983, 1984, 1985 and 1986. The appellant-bank opposed the said application. The Labour Court computed the amount payable to respondent No. 3 at Rs 5,016. The order made by the Labour Court was challenged by way of a writ petition before the High Court. In the High Court the contention put forth on behalf of the appellant was that the conditions of service of workmen are governed by the Sastri award or Desai award. However, the High Court rejected this contention that this award had ceased to apply in the year 1966, in view of the decision of this Court in Central Bank of India v. Sisir Kumar Shaw AIR 1976 SC 929 : 1976 (2) SCC 859 : 1976-I-LLJ-90. Hence, this appeal by special leave.
(3) AT the time when this matter was considered at the preliminary stage, the appellant was directed to pay the amount awarded by the Labour Court irrespective of the result of this matter. In view of that the order it is not necessary to upset the order made by the Labour Court even if we agree with the contention advanced on behalf of the appellant.
(4) SRI G. B. Pai, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that in Central Bank of India case (supra) this Court made an observation which is as follows:
"In order to understand the point implied in this case it is not necessary to refer to the details of the Sastri award of 1953 or the Desai award which ceased to apply in the year 1966."
(5) IN that decision except to make as statement of fact the question whether these two awards were in force or not was not in issue at all and, therefore, no question of any pronouncement on this point is necessary. This aspect of the matter has been examined in detail in the case of South Indian Bank Ltd. v. A. R. Chacko AIR 1964 SC 1522 : 1964-I-LLJ- 19. The effect of the various provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act in relation to the period for which the settlement or the award will be in force and the effect of the Industrial Disputes (Banking Companies) Decision Act, 1955, has been considered. This Court took the view that under the provisions of Section 19(6) of the Industrial Disputes Act an award shall continue to be binding on parties even after the period stated under Section 19(3) expires and Section 4 of the Industrial Disputes (Banking Companies) Decision Act, 1955, will not affect the same. It is observed that an award does not cease to be in force or cease to be binding on the parties, in view of the provisions of Section 19(6) of the Industrial Disputes Act, until the parties intimate to each other about their intention to do so. It has been brought to our notice that the Bipartite Settlement in fact refers to this aspect. It is brought to our notice that in Chapter 1, Clause 1 in preamble itself indicates the manner in which the Desai or Sastri award is dealt with:
"1.1 The parties are agreed that the provisions of the award of the All India Industrial Tribunal presided over by Sri P. Sastri as finally modified and enacted by the Industrial Disputes (Banking Companies) Decision Act, 1955, the Industrial Disputes (Banking Companies) Decision Amendment Act 1957, and the provisions of the award of the National Industrial Tribunal presided over by Justice Sri K. T. DESAI in Reference No. 1 of 1960, which award, inter alia, modifies certain provisions of the Sastri award, shall govern the service conditions therein covered except to the extent that the same have been modified in this settlement."
(6) IN this view of the matter we do not think the High Court was justified in taking the view that the said Desai award has ceased to apply in the year 19
