Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Senior Regional Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited - Appellant
Versus
Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-I, Hyderabad - Respondent
Decided On : 03-11-02
Constitution of India , 1950 - Article 14 - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 10 - Pay-scales - Relief of regularisation in services - Direction to pay wages - In writ petition management assailed the validity of the award dated passed by Industrial Tribunal-I, - By Industrial Tribunal directed Management to regularise services of 26 workmen mentioned in list against existing vacancies applying rules of reservation in order of seniority in respective categories and if no vacancies, then to regularise their services as and when vacancies arise - Writ appeal management has questioned the validity of award passed by the Industrial Tribunal in its entirety as court could see from the Memorandum of writ appeal at time of argument attack of learned Counsel against award of Industrial Court mainly against part of award directing Management to pay wages to workmen concerned in terms of pay-scales on part with regular employees with effect from and not against other part of award directing regularisation of services of the workmen obviously management cannot have any legitimate grievance either in law or on facts against award of Industrial Tribunal directing regularisation of services of workmen - Learned Counsel for the Management before court is that Industrial Tribunal in directing that the workmen are entitled to pay-scales on par with regular employees from went beyond the terms of reference as well as the points framed for adjudication and therefore, that part of the award is a nullity in the eye of law - Learned Counsel would point out that was referred to Industrial Tribunal for adjudication was whether services of 26 workmen should be regularised - Regular employees on the ground that the duties and functions discharged by them are similar to those performed by the regular employees is a pure question of fact and such a question could be resolved only on basis of pleadings of parties and evidence that may be led by parties in trial and in instant case there was absolutely no opportunity for the management to show that duties and functions performed by the workmen concerned are not similar to duties and functions performed by the regular employees– Held, Labour Appellate Tribunal not only confirmed decision of Industrial Tribunal but also increased the quantum of compensation - In writ proceedings the Calcutta High Court that where a specific issue is referred, Tribunal must confine itself to that issue and it is not called upon to exercise general jurisdiction and adjust all dispute between the parties - It was further observed that compensation for wrongful dismissal or loss or service is a completely different thing and therefore matter decided was neither incidental nor related to the dispute referred - In Workmen of Bengal Electric Lamp Works Limited v. Bengal Electric Lamp Works Limited in a reference question was as to what should be service conditions of 59 female workers - In writ proceedings against the award of the Tribunal - High Court observed that on proper construction expression incidental matters refers to prospective not retrospective matters, unless actual terms of reference indicate either expressly or by compelling and necessary implication and give jurisdiction to Tribunal to pass orders retrospectively - Relief granted to the workmen that they are entitled to pay-scales on par with regular employees is undoubtedly is on the assumption that workmen concerned did/do discharge same functions and duties attached to the regular post - Whether workmen concerned perform same duties and functions on par with regular employees being a question of fact, such a question shall be resolved only by permitting the parties to adduce evidence and after appreciation of such evidence - Thirdly, even in course of adjudication of the reference Industrial Tribunal though chose to frame points for adjudication/determination did not frame point relating to the entitlement of workmen concerned to pay-scales on par with regular employees - Counsel cited some decisions to impress upon us about the intendment of Directive Principles of State Policy and constitutional rights of labour perennial exploitation of labour class treating them as daily wagers etc - Not find it necessary to deal with those contentions in view of the settled position in law and in view of Court considered opinion that question whether the workmen are entitled to pay-scales on par with regular employees with effect from is not an incidental issue arising out of point referred to Industrial Tribunal for adjudication by Government of India - Writ appeal in part and set aside
( 1 ) THE management of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL) has filed this writ appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and order of the learned single Judge dated 12-4-2001 in WP No. 15099 of 2000 dismissing the writ petition. In the writ petition, the management assailed the validity of the award dated 17-12-1999 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-I, Hyderabad in ID No. 20 of 1998. By the said award, the Industrial Tribunal directed the Management to regularise services of 26 workmen mentioned in Ex. W2 list against the existing vacancies applying rules of reservation in the order of seniority in the respective categories and if there are no vacancies, then to regularise their services as and when the vacancies arise. Further, the Industrial Tribunal directed that those 26 workmen are entitled to pay scales on par with regular employees with effect from 1-12-1999 and they should be paid arrears also.
( 2 ) IN the writ petition, the Management has not only questioned the validity of the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal as regards the relief of regularisation in services granted to 26 workmen, but also direction to the Management to pay wages to those 26 workmen in terms of pay scales on par with regular employees from 1-12-1999. Although in the writ appeal also, the management has questioned the validity of the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal in its entirety, as we could see from the Memorandum of writ appeal, at the time of argument, the attack of the learned Counsel against the award of the Industrial Court mainly against the part of the award directing the Management to pay wages to workmen concerned in terms of pay-scales on part with regular employees with effect from 1-12-1999 and not so much against the other part of the award directing regularisation of services of the workmen obviously because the management cannot have any legitimate grievance either in law or on facts against the award of the Industrial Tribunal directing regularisation of the services of the workmen. In our considered opinion, the findings records by the Industrial Tribunal as regarded the relief of regularisation are well-founded and they are based on acceptable substantive legal evidence and therefore, they do not call for any interference by this Court.
( 3 ) THE main contention of Ms. Uma, learned Counsel for the Management before us is that the Industrial Tribunal in directing that the workmen are entitled to pay-scales on par with regular employees from 1-12-1999 went beyond the terms of reference as well as the points framed for adjudication and therefore, that part of the award is a nullity in the eye of law. The learned Counsel would point out that what was referred to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication was whether the services of 26 workmen should be regularised or not and not the question whether those workmen are entitled to pay scales on par with regular employees from 1-12-1999. The learned Counsel would draw our attention to the points framed by the Industrial Tribunal in para (8) for determination and the two points raised by the Industrial Tribunal do not relate to the entitlement of the workmen to claim pay-scale on par with regular employees. The learned Counsel would alternatively contend that the question whether the workmen are entitled to pay-scales on part with the regular employees on the ground that the duties and functions discharged by them are similar to those performed by the regular employees, is a pure question of fact and such a question could be resolved only on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence that may be led by the parties in the trial and in the instant case, there was absolutely no opportunity for the management to show that the duties and functions performed by the workmen concerned are not similar to the duties and functions performed by the regular employees. Looking from that angle also, the learned Counsel would maintain, the directio
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
