IMPORTANT POINT
Reinstatement and back wages cannot be ordered for workers in a closed establishment, as such directions are legally unsustainable.

JUDGMENT :

G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.

1. The petitioners have filed the Writ petition for the following relief:

“ For quashing the Award dated 27.06.2018 passed in Reference Case No.23 of 1994 by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Begusarai, Respondent no.2 by which the Court reinstated two workmen out of six in service with back wages committing an error that the College run by the petitioner in the Barauni Thermal premises which was closed for last so many years and there was no post on which the workman was reinstated in service and directed to be re-appointed in closed establishment the dispute was raised in a closed establishment which can not be an Industrial Dispute under the Act.”

2. It is the second round of litigation. At the outset, the petitioner has filed CWJC No. 8790 of 2008 assailing the award dated 18.12.2007 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court Begusarai in Reference Case No. 23 of 1994 by which termination of service of respondent nos. 4 and 5, namely Bibhu Shankar Sharma and Mahendra Mallick has been held to be improper and unjustified and it has been held that both the workmen are fit to be adjusted with all consequential benefits in any other branch of the Management. This Court on considering the contentions and merits of both the parties has passed a detailed order dated 29.03.2018 in CWJC No. 8790 of 2008. The relevant part of the judgment is quoted herein below for better appreciation:

“9. Without going into merits of the submissions made on behalf of the parties, I would straightway come to the operative part of the impugned award dated 18.12.2007 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, Begusarai. The first part of the award states that the termination of the workmen, namely, Bibhu Shankar Sharma and Mahendra Mallick by the Management was unjustified and illegal. The second part of the award is that both the workmen are fit to be taken back into services but because the college run by the Management in which they were employed has been closed, they were fit to be employed with all consequential benefits in any other branch of the Management.

10. The question is as to whether the award passed by the Labour Court can be termed to be a valid award. In order to find out the answer, it would be essential to see what an award is? The award in a quasi judicial proceeding is the end product of the adjudication process.

11. Section 2 (b) of the I.D. Act stipulates “award” means an interim or a final determination of any industrial dispute or of any question relating thereto by any Labour Court, Industrial Tribunal or National Industrial Tribunal and includes an arbitration award made under Section 10 -A.

12. Thus, an order shall be deemed to be an award in terms of Section 2 (b) of the I.D. Act under the following circumstances:-(a) it is an interim or final determination of an industrial dispute or (b) it is an interim or final determination of any question relating to such dispute and (c) such interim or final determination is made by a Labour Court, an Industrial Tribunal or a National Tribunal, or (d) it is an arbitration award under Section 10 -A.

13. The first part of the definition of the award specifies the determination final or interim. The second part pertains to determination of any question relating to dispute.

14. Leaving some issues to be settled by the parties themselves without determination by the Labour Court cannot be termed to be a valid award. The expression „determination of any dispute‟ means an adjudication of the dispute on relevant materials.

15. The Supreme Court in Cox and Kings Ltd. vs. Workmen [1977(1) LLJ