Back
1972 Supreme(Del) 229
High Court Of Delhi
MEHAR SINGH - Appellant
Versus
DELHI ADMINISTRATION - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL 296 of 1971
Decided On : 10/09/1972
ANAND PARKASH, D.C.MATHUR, M.KAPUR
An interim award granted by a Labour Court under the Industrial Disputes Act is an award within the meaning of the Act and becomes enforceable and binding on the parties from the date of its publication. A stay order granted by the High Court in a writ petition challenging the validity of a demand order for recovery of the amount due under the award does not affect the merits of the prosecution and conviction under section 29 of the Act for failure to comply with the award.
Headnote:
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT - INTERIM AWARD - ENFORCEABILITY - STAY ORDER - EFFECT ON PROSECUTION - CONVICTION UNDER SECTION 29 - LEGALITY.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, partners of a restaurant, were found guilty of failing to comply with an interim award granted by the Labour Court under the Industrial Disputes Act. They challenged their conviction, arguing that the interim award was not an award within the meaning of the Act and that the operation of the award was stayed by the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the interim award was an award within the meaning of the Act and that it became enforceable and binding on the parties from the date of its publication. The court further held that the stay order granted by the High Court did not affect the merits of the prosecution and conviction under section 29 of the Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the interim award was an award within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act? 2. Whether the operation of the award was stayed by the High Court? 3. Whether the stay order granted by the High Court affected the merits of the prosecution and conviction under section 29 of the Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the interim award was an award within the meaning of the Act, relying on the definition of award in section 2(b) of the Act and the decision of the Supreme Court in The Management Hotel Imperial, New Delhi and others, vs. Hotel Worker sunion, AIR 1959 S. C. 1342. 2. The court held that the operation of the award was not stayed by the High Court, as the stay order was granted in a writ petition challenging the validity of the demand order for recovery of the amount due under the award, and not the validity of the award itself. 3. The court held that the stay order granted by the High Court did not affect the merits of the prosecution and conviction under section 29 of the Act, as the petitioners had failed to comply with the interim award and had rendered themselves liable to prosecution and conviction.
Final Decision: The court rejected the petition and upheld the conviction and sentence of the petitioners.
( 1 ) THIS petition for revision, by Mehar Singh,charan. Dass and Ujaggar Singh has arisen in the following circumstances. The above named three petitioners were partners of Messrs Be-Bclgarestaurant and Standard Burfi. Certain disputes arose between themanagemenl and the workmen and the Delhi Administration, videits Notification dated 14/02/1967 REFERRED TO the disputes to thelabour Court for adjudication. On 5/05/1967, Shri Ved Prakashaggarwal, the Labour Court passed an interim award allowing interimrelief to the workmen. The interim award was that the managementshall pay 50 per cent of the wages, besides Rs. 12. 50 per month byway of food allowance, to all the workmen from the date of the orderof dismissal till the final decision, of the case or till the closure of theconcern, whichever is earlier. The interim award was published inthe Delhi Gazette on 6/07/1967, under section 17 of the Industrialdisputes Act (hereinafter called the "act" ). Under section 17a,the award became enforceable on the expiry of 30 days from the dateof its publication under section. 17. Under sub-section. (3) of section18 of the Act, the award became binding on the parties with effect fromthe date it became enforceable. The management did not complywith the interim award. On 24/04/1968, Delhi Admiaistrationthrough the Labour Commissioner, filled a complaint under section29 of the Act against the petitioners for failure to comply with theaward. The workmen made an application under section 33 C (l)to the appropriate government for the recovery of the money due fromthe management. On 1 4/05/1968, the Labour Commissioneracting for the appropriate government, issued certificate for recoveryof Rs. 28,602. 31 P as arrears of land revenue from the management.
( 2 ) ON 18/05/1968, the petitioners filed a petition under Article 226of the Constitution of India for quashing the notice of demand for thesum of Rs. 28,602. 31 in this Court. Alongwith the pstition, thepetitioners moved an application for stay of the recovery of Rs. 28,682. 31. The said petition came up for consideration on 20/05/1968 before Hon ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice I. D. Dua (as his Lordship then was) and Mr. Justice V. S. Deshpande. Their Lordshipspassed the following order on the petition:
"rule. Notice re: recovery for 27-5-68. Stay till then. "
( 3 ) ON 27/05/1968, Dua J. modified the order dated 20/05/1968,and passed an order directing the petitioners to deposit the amountin the Court within two weeks and further directed that the amount benot paid to the workmen without an order of the court. The petitioners in compliance of this order deposited the requisite amount. On 18/02/1971, the writ petition in view of some compromisebetween the parties was dismissed as withdrawn.
( 4 ) THE trial Magistrate, vide his order dated 22nd April, 1969, foundndthe petitioners guilty of the offence under section 29 of the Act andsentenced each one of them to simple imprisonment for 15 days anda fine of Rs. 500. 00 and in default of payment of fine to undergo S. I. for 15 days. Against their conviction and sentence the petitionerswent in appeal to the Sessions Judge. The appeal was heard by Shrio. N. Vohra, Additional Sessions Judge, on 30/04/1971 and heaffirmed the conviction of the pstitioners but reduced the sentence ofimprisonment to that already undergone and imposed a fine of Rs. 750. 00, and in default ths accused were to undergo the sentence awardedto them by the Magistrate. Against this order the petitioners havecome in revision to this court.
( 5 ) DR. Anand Prakash on behalf of the petitioners contended that theorder dated 5/05/1967, is not an. award within the meaning ofsection 2 (b) of the Act and, therefore, the conviction of the petitionersunder section 29 is not legal. Section 2 (b) of the Act defines award and it reads as:-
" (B) "award" means an interim or a final determination of anyindustrial dispute or of any question relating thereto by anylabour Court, Indust
