SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1963 Supreme(MP) 111

High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
V. R. Newaskar and S. B. Sen, JJ.
WATER WORKS KARMACHARI SANGH - Appellant
Versus
PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT - Respondents
Misc. Petn. 19 Of 1963
Decided On : 11/08/1963

Advocates Appeared:
J.D.PATEL, S.L.Dubey

Headnote:Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 -Ss. 36-A & 10 (1) (c) -scope of section 36-A -relates to interpretation of awards-ancillary matters cannot be decided under this section-this can be done under section 10 (1) (c).

       The defficulties do arise in the matter of interpretation of the award after the award is given and the object of section 36-A is to enable the Government to make a reference in case any doubt or difficulty arises as to the interpretation of any provision of the award or settlement The power of interpretation can only be utilised for the purpose of giving effect to the terms of the award in its true sense and is not intended to form a basis for deciding something that ancillary. [Para 10

       Under section 36-A, the petitioners can only get what they would be in a position to get by interpretation of a former award. If they are not entitled to get the relief by the process of interpretation from the former a ward, all that they can do is to take steps for a further reference under section 10 (1) (c). (1961) 2 LLJ 310 relied on, AIR 1960 SC 160 & AIR 1963 SC 63 referred to. [Para 12

NEWASKAR, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution submitted by the workers of the Water-works Ujjain through the President of the Water-works Karmachari sangh.

( 2 ) THE petition is directed against the Public Health and Engineering Department government of Madhya Pradesh Bhopal, and by this petition the petitioners seek to quash the order passed by the Industrial Court on a reference made by the government of Madhya Pradesh under Section 36-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. The circumstances under which the reference came to be made may briefly be stated as under:

( 3 ) THE petitioners raised a dispute regarding pension scheme under which they were entitled to pension by reason of the fact that the Water-works at Ujjain was taken over by the State of Madhya Bharat on 1-4-1955 and it had been decided to allow pension to the employees of the Water-works as if they had commenced their services in the State Government Department from 2-4-1953. Many of the employees of the Water-works had put in considerable service extending over 10, 15, 20 and even 30 years and the actual dispute which the employees had raised was that they should be taken to be Government employees for the purpose of pension from the dates of their individual appointments. The Government was not agreeable "to this position and ultimately they made a reference under Section 10 (1) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Industrial Tribunal presided over by Shri G. K. Shinde gave an award holding that the employees of the Ujjain water-works should be treated on par with the Gwalior Water-works and Shivpuri water-works and that their services should be made pensionable from the date of their appointment. This award was given on 25th March 1960.

( 4 ) AFTER this award another dispute was raised on behalf of the petitioners. In the year 1956 new scales were fixed for the Government employees including the employees of the Water-works and the question arose as to whether the employees of the Ujjain Waterworks were entitled to weightage in the matter of fixation of their pay in the pay-scales in accordance with the number of years of service which they had put in. On the basis of the award of the Industrial Tribunal in the matter of pension dated 25-3-1960, it was contended on behalf of the petitioners that the reasoning of that case should be applied in the subsequent dispute as to fixation of their pay. This was treated to be a matter as to interpretation of the former award dated 25th March 1960 and the Government made a reference under Section 36-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. The operative part of the reference was as follows:

"whether making the services of the employees pensionable from the date of their appointment entitles them to all the benefits of permanent employees from the said dates as if the previous service rendered was government service. "

( 5 ) THE Industrial Court to which this reference was made held that the original award in respect of which aforesaid reference was made did not contemplate that the employees of the Ujjain Water-works would automatically be entitled to all other benefits of permanent employees. This conclusion was reached on the ground that the question of advance increment in the matter of fixation of pay in the revised pay scales was an issue altogether different from the issue of pension scheme and that the question of all other benefits of permanent employees besides that of pension was never before the Industrial Tribunal at the time of the former award and therefore could not be said to have been decided by that tribunal either expressly or by necessary implication.

( 6 ) THE question now raised on behalf of the petitioner regarding increments to the employees on the basis of duration of their services while fixing their pay in the revised pay scales could, according to the Industrial Court, be independently referred to the Industrial Court by the Government in exercise of their power under
















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top