Back
2023 Supreme(Raj) 48
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
ASHOK KUMAR GAUR, J.
Secretary Administration Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited – Appellant
Versus
Rashtriya Bijali Karmachari Union (INTUC) Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8015 of 2017
Decided on : 24-01-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.Virendra Lodha, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Jai Lodha, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr.Suresh Kashyap, Adv.
Point of Law : Section 10(4) of Act of 1947 provides the procedure which is being followed by Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, while deciding Reference and as per sub-Section (4) of Section 10, Labour Court has been given not only power to decide points of dispute for adjudication but it can also decide ‘incidental matters.
Headnote:
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 227 - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 10(4) - Workman - Entitlement of basic salary - Respondent- workman submitted that award passed by Industrial Tribunal does not require any interference by Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India and findings recorded after taking into account entire evidence, may not be substituted by Court, as same would amount to re-appreciating of evidence - Respondent-workman is an ‘incidental relief’ and same is permissible and as such, no error has been committed - Workman while filing his statement of claim, had given specific names of employees, who were similarly situated like respondent-workman but were getting higher pay than respondent-workman - Whether employee was entitled for any relief or not - Court finds that claim which was made by the respondent-workman was in respect of the basic salary of Rs.595/- per month on his appointment on post of LDC from post of Helper. Para 11
Finding of Court :
Court finds that award passed by Industrial Tribunal has taken into account relevant factors for granting relief, pleadings of parties and further evidence led before it and accordingly it came to conclusion that respondent-workman was entitled for relief, which has been granted to him - Finds that Court had granted award of compensation in lieu of reinstatement and same was not one of terms of reference and accordingly, Court came to conclusion that jurisdiction of Court has been exceeded - Court, in present facts of case, finds that if respondent-workman has raised a dispute and ultimately reference has been made by State Government for claiming particular pay or a pay scale, Court if has found that relief claimed by respondent-workman is to be given, as has been given to other similarly situated employees, it cannot be said that Court has exceeded its jurisdiction and as such, said case is of little assistance to learned counsel for petitioner.
Result : Present writ petition stands dismissed.
ORDER :
1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-employer challenging the award dated 02.012.2016, passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that a reference was made to the Industrial Tribunal Jaipur, whereby the claim of the respondent-workman was to be adjudicated in respect of his entitlement of basic salary of Rs.595/- to be paid to him on 19.04.1985 and if the same salary was not being paid, whether the employee was entitled for any relief or not.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the award, has made following submissions:-
1. There has been a jurisdictional error by the Industrial Tribunal in granting relief to the petitioner by holding him entitled for basic salary of Rs.580/- per month, as there was no such reference being made.
2. The Industrial Tribunal has gone beyond the scope of reference and the same is not permissible in the eyes of law.
3. The respondent-workman since had not prayed for the relief of grant of Rs.580/- as basic salary per month, as such in absence of any prayer, no such relief could have been granted.
4. The relief, as has been moulded by the Industrial Tribunal could not have been done, as there was lack of pleadings in respect of entitlement of the respondent-workman for getting basic salary of Rs.580/- per month.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also places reliance on a judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Suresh Chandra Vs. General Manager, Raj.State Bridge & Construction Corporation reported in 2002(3) WLC (Raj.) 67. Para 6, 11, 15 & 16 is quoted hereunder:-
“6. Jurisdiction to deal with a case is a creation of statute and it cannot be created by acquiescence of the party or by the order of the Court. (Vide the Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the United Commercial Bank Ltd. v. Their Workmen (1), in Kesar Singh and Ors. v. Sadhu (2), the Apex Court held that a decree without jurisdiction is a nullity and when the matter goes to root of the jurisdiction, it can be raised even in execution proceedings. The finding of a Court or a Tribunal becomes irrelevant and unenforceable/inexecutable once the forum is found to have no jurisdiction (Vide State of Gujarat v. Rajesh Kumar Chimanlal Barot and Anr., AIR 1996 SC 2664.
11. In the Bombay Gas Company Ltd. v. Gopal Bhiva and Ors., AIR 1964 SC 752, the Hon'ble Supreme Court examined the scope of jurisdiction and powers of the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court and held that the Labour Court is a Court of limited jurisdiction and it can deal with only the dispute referred to it and the matters incidental thereto, but cannot travel beyond the terms of the reference:
15. Thus, in view of the above, I reach the inescapable conclusion that the Labour Court lacks competence to correct/modify/amend/alter the terms of the reference or correct the name or the date of termination etc. and in case it does so, the award becomes nullity, being without jurisdiction, based on the bad reference.
16. Thus, the impugned award dated 25.4.2000 is declared to be a nullity, unenforceable and inexecutable and is hereby set- aside. The workman may approach the Appropriate Government for amending the reference. As the matter is very old, if the workman makes such an application, the Appropriate Government is requested to pass appropriate order on his application expeditiously and in case the reference is made, the Labour Court is requested to dispose of the claim petition expeditiously. There shall be no order as to costs.”
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent- workman submitted that the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal does not require any interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and findings recorded after taking into account the entire evidence, may not be substituted by this Court, as the same would amount to re-appreciating of evidence.
6. Learned counsel s
