The main legal point established in the judgment is the exclusion of periods of service during which the workmen suffered punishment and loss of pay for computing the qualifying service for review benefits, in accordance with the Common Service Rules and the Settlement under the Industrial Disputes Act.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: W.P. No.2358 of 2019 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this Court to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the order dated 30.05.2018 passed by the 2nd respondent in I.D. No.99 of 2016 and quash the same.)

1. The common award dated 30.05.2018 passed by the 2nd respondent, viz., Principal Labour Court, Coimbatore, allowing the claim of the workmen and directing the petitioner to pay the review benefits is assailed by filing the present writ petitions.

2. The brief facts of the case, necessary for disposal, are as under :-

The workmen, whose cases have been projected in the respective industrial disputes raised by the 1st respondent Union are working under the petitioner. The Common Service Rules of the petitioner/Corporation provides for review for advancement from one scale to another scale for employees in the Working Groups and Miscellaneous Groups after completing the prescribed length of service.

3. The workmen in the Working Group/Miscellaneous Group are entitled for review of their performance by the competent authority for advancement to the next higher scale/level of pay in the group. It is the further case of the petitioner that review for the purpose of advancement of scale would be after completion of six years, eight years and ten years of qualifying service at the first level, second level and third level, the said workmen would be entitled for review of his performance for advancement of scale.

4. It is the further case of the petitioner that if a workmen had suffered punishment and where increment was withheld without cumulative effect, for such of those workmen, the review would be conducted in the normal course, but the reduction in qualifying service shall be made for the period of postponement of increments without cumulative effect when the postponement is in operation and to that extent there is a shortfall in the qualifying years of service, the same shall be treated as temporary shortfall in qualifying service and where the temporary shortfall is less than three months, the benefit of review shall be allowed from the notional date of review, but the monetary benefit shall be postponed to the extent of the shortfall and where the shortfall is more than three months, since the review is done only on the first day of each quarter, as per Rule 62, the notional date itself shall get postponed to the first day of the next quarter and the benefit of review shall be further regulated.

5. It is the further case of the petitioner that the workman does not automatically qualify for review benefits by simply counting his extent of service and the computation of qualifying service is based on the performance of the workman and the disqualified period of service is deducted for the purpose of granting review benefits in the settlement entered u/s 12 (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

6. It is the further case of the petitioner that the workmen, who are covered by the respective industrial disputes raised on their behalf by the 1st respondent/Union, had suffered punishment and accordingly, applying the Rules, the review benefit stood postponed accordingly in terms of Clause 62 and, accordingly, their benefits stood computed on the basis of the settlement arrived at u/s 12 (3) of the ID Act. Particular reliance has been placed on Rule 61 and 62 of the Common Service Rules of the Corporation, which pertains to grant of review benefit and the manner in which computation has to be made.

7. Since the workmen were granted the review benefits, though belatedly, due to the fact that each of the workman had suffered punishments in the course of employment, applying the provisions of Rule 62, the review benefit was granted to the workmen by computing their qualifying in line with the Common Service Rules. However, the disputes raised by the workmen resulted in the 2nd respondent passing the award directing the petitioner to pay the review benefits cl