The Tribunal had the jurisdiction to implead a party and to decide on the deprivation of benefits under the settlement dated 7/9.11.1988.

An industrial dispute arose between the Food Corporation oflndia and its workmen and conciliation having failed, by an order dated 27.10.1993, the Central Govt referred the following points in dispute to the Industrial Tribunal, Guwahati, (for short, the Tribunal) for adjudication under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (for short, the Act, 1947) :

"Whether the claim of wages of 37 workers wef 1.8.88 to 31.10.89 (15 months) at par with direct payment system workers of Food Corporation of India is justified? If so, what relief the workers concerned are entitled to?"

2. Written statements were filed by the Management of the Food Corporation of India, (for short, the FCI) as well as the workmen represented by the General Secretary, FCI Workers Union. The case of the FCI in its written statement before the Tribunal, inter alia, was that the 37 workers were engaged at Hapania by the Central Warehousing Corporation, (for short, the CWC) for the work of loading, unloading, etc at the warehouses where the food grains of the FCI were stored during the period 1.8.1988 to 31.10.1989 and, therefore, the said 37 workers were not entitled to wages at par with direct payment system workers of the FCI. The case of the workmen in their written statement, on the other hand, was that the 37 workers were actually the workers of the FCI and were entitled to wages at par with direct payment system workers of the FCI. The CWC filed a petition before the Tribunal for being impleaded which was allowed and the CWC filed its written statement. Evidence was adduced by the respective parties. In its Award notified on 14.10.1998, the Tribunal held that there existed a relationship of employer and employee between the Management of FCI and of the workers who had been working for loading and unloading of goods of the FCI at Harpania, and they were legally entitled to have the benefits of wage rates of settlement dated 7/9.11.1988 effective from 1.9.1988, and deprivation of the benefits under the said settlement dated 7/9.11.1998 on the plea that they were not the workers of the FCI was arbitrary and not legally tenable in the eye of law, and directed the Management of the FCI, to pay the wages under the Direct Payment System of Settlement of 1988 forthwith to the 37 workers. The petitioners, namely, the FCI and the District Manager, FCI, Agartala, have filed this writ petition for quashing the said Award of the Tribunal.

3. Mr. S. Deb, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to implead the CWC as a party as under sub-section (5) of section 10 of the Act, 1947, the appropriate Govt has been vested with the power to include in a Reference any establishment, group or class of establishments other than those already included in the Reference and, therefore, the Award of the Tribunal was beyond its jurisdiction, and is liable to be quashed. Mr. Deb further submitted that the Tribunal had the limited jurisdiction of deciding the dispute referred to it by the appropriate Govt and the dispute referred to the Tribunal was whether the claim of wages of 37 workers with effect from 1.8.1988 to 31.10.1989 at par with Direct Payment System Workers of the FCI was justified, and , if so, what relief the workers concerned were entitled to ? Mr. Deb vehemently argued that no reference was made to the Tribunal as to whether or not the deprivation of benefits under the settlement dated 7/9.11.1988 was arbitrary and that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by holding that deprivation of benefits under the settlement dated 7/9.11.1988 on the plea that they were not the workers of the FCI was arbitrary. In support of this submission, Mr. Deb cited the decision of the Supreme Court in Bharat Bank vs. Employees of Bharat Bank, AIR 1950 SC188, and in particular the observations of Mahajan, therein that a duty has been cast on the Industrial Tribunal to adjudicate a dispute referred to it in accordance with t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document