Madras High Court
The Management Of United India ... vs Presiding Officer, Principal Labour ... on 20 September, 2002
Author: P.K. Misra
Bench: P.K. Misra
JUDGMENT P.K. Misra, J.
1. In this writ petition filed by the United India Insurance Company Limited, interim order passed by the Presiding Officer, Principal Labour Court, Chennai in I.A.No.4 of 2000, arising out of CGID.No.316 of 1999, directing payment of 50 percent of the last drawn wages or Rs.3,000/- per month as interim relief, is being challenged.
2. The respondent No.2 was employed under the present petitioner. He was placed under suspension by order dated 12.3.1990 and memorandum of charges was issued on 6.7.1990 containing several articles of charges. Ultimately the competent authority imposed punishment of penalty of " removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for future employment" vide order dated 5.2.1991. Appeal against such order was rejected and so also the memorial. The respondent No.2 challenged the aforesaid action by filing Writ Petition which was dismissed by a learned single Judge of this Court. Subsequently, Writ Appeal No.884 of 1993 filed by the present respondent No.2 was allowed and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration of the disciplinary authority. Pursuant to the above direction, the second respondent was reinstated in service as a "suspended employee" and was paid arrears of subsistence allowance to the tune of Rs.1,76,000/-. Thereafter enquiry was conducted and fresh order of removal from service was passed and subsequently the appeal and memorial preferred by the second respondent were rejected.
The second respondent at that stage raised an Industrial Dispute and upon submission of the failure report, the matter was referred to Principal Labour Court, Chennai by the Central Government and the same is pending adjudication before the Labour Court being numbered as CGID.No.316/99. In the said proceeding, after several adjournments the case was posted on 19.6.2000 for filing claim statement by the second respondent. However, the second respondent filed the claim statement on 18.4.2000 alongwith an application to advance the date of hearing which was numbered as I.A.No. 3 of 2000 and the Labour Court received the claim statement and allowed the interim application for advancing the date of hering without notice to the petitioner's counsel. The second respondent also filed another application I.A.No.4 of 2000 for direction to pay 50% of his last drawn salary pending CGID No.316/99. The present petitioner was issued notice on this application which was served on 4.5.2000 for being heard on 5.5.2000. The petitioner's counsel sought for three weeks time to file counter, but the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court posted the matter on 9.5.2000, 10.5.2000 and ultimately on 15.5.2000 for filing counter. The present petitioner was unable to file detailed counter since relevant papers had been handed over to C.B.I., however, a preliminary counter was filed on 19.5.2000 and the interim order was passed on 25.5.2000 directing payment of 50% of last drawn wages, that is to say Rs.3,000/- per month. This order is being challenged in the present writ petition.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that when the respondent No.2 had been terminated from the service, the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to give direction for payment of any amount before considering the industrial dispute on merits, as such interim order virtually amounted to allowing the industrial dispute in favour of the respondent No.2. In alternative, it has been submitted that even assuming that the Labour Court has jurisdiction, it has been exercised arbitrarily by deciding the matter in hot haste and by directing payment even without considering the question as to whether there is any strong prima facie case in favour of the second respondent.
4. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that the Labour Court did not have jurisdiction to grant any interim relief, particularly in a case where the workman had been terminated from service, is not acceptable. Section 10(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act empowers the Labour Court to consider any matter incidental to the dispute and interim direction for payment can be considered to be within the ambit of Section 10(4) of the Act.
5. In (THE MANAGEMENT HOTEL IMPERIAL, NEW DELHI AND OTHERS v. HOTEL WORKERS' UNION) it was observed as follows :-
" . . . There can be no doubt that if, for example, question of reinstatement and/or compensation is referred to a tribunal for adjudication, the question of granting interim relief till the decision of the tribunal with respect to the same matter would be a matter incidental thereto under Section 10(4) and need not be specifically referred in terms to the tribunal. Thus interim relief where it is admissible can be granted as a matter incidental to the main question referred to the tribunal without being itself referred in express terms.
6. The aforesaid decision, as well as the decisions of the Supreme Court and of different High Courts were considered by this Court in 1993(2) LLJ 1 (E.I.D. PARRY (INDIA) LIMITED AND ANOTHER Vs. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, MADRAS AND ANOTHER) and it was observed that the Tribunal has power under Section 10(4) to grant interim relief with respect to matters incidental to the point of dispute for adjudication.
This Court also approved the ratio of the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in 1989(1) LLN 778 (NATIONAL TEXTILE CORPORATION Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN) which had laid down that the following points should be considered :
" (1) that there is a prima facie case, meaning thereby that there is a serious question to be tried and an existence of a right;
(2) that the tribunal's interference is necessary to protect the party from that species of injury which is regarded by the Courts as irreparable; and (3) the balance of convenience, i.e., the tribunal should weigh the amount of substantial mischief that is likely to be caused to the party claiming interim relief if the same is refused and compare it with that which is likely to be caused to the other side if the interim relief is granted . . . "
Keeping in view the aforesaid observations, there cannot be any doubt that the Labour Court has got jurisdiction under Section 10(4) to grant interim relief.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that even assuming that interim relief can be granted, the Labour Court must come to a conclusion that the claimant before the Labour Court has made out a strong prima facie case and the Labour Court is also required to consider the question of irreparable loss and balance of convenience.
It has been further submitted that even though in the present case the Labour Court has referred to some aspects regarding irreparable loss and balance of convenience, it has not considered the question of prima facie case and has directed for payment of amount merely because the workman was out of service and was fighting several litigations. It has been submitted that without considering the existence of strong prima facie case, the Labour Court should not have passed an order granting interim relief. In this connection, it has been further submitted that the Labour Court has dealt with the matter in hot haste and has not granted reasonable time to the management to file a full-fledged counter.
8. The aforesaid submissions of the counsel appearing for the petitioner have got some force. A perusal of the order passed by the Labour Court indicates that it has not at all adverted to the question of prima facie case and has merely rested on the fact that the workman was out of service for a long period and was to fight litigations. Moreover, the submission that the Labour Court has acted in hot haste appears to be some what correct inasmuch as the Labour Court has preponed the case from 19.6.2000 to a prior date and thereafter had not acceded to the request of the counsel for the respondent therein to give reasonable time to file reply to the claim statement.
9. Keeping in view the aforesaid aspects, in normal course, I would have remitted the matter to the Labour Court for fresh consideration, however, I desist from doing so on account of certain peculiar facts indicated hereinafter.
10. As submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent that the matter is continuing for more than 10 years in different courts and even assuming that ultimately the order of termination would be confirmed by the Labour Court, the respondent No.2 would be admittedly entitled to certain terminal benefits in excess of Rs.1 lakh and the amount paid by way of interim relief can be adjusted from such amount. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has admitted that even if the order of termination is confirmed, the respondent No.2 will be entitled to a sum of about Rs.1,10,000/- or more.
11. Keeping in view the above aspects, instead of remanding the matter relating to interim relief, I intend to give a quietus to this aspect by giving the following direction :-
(1) The respondent No.2 would be paid at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month for the period starting from the date of order of the Labour Court till the end of August, 2002. This arrear amount shall be paid within a period of one month from the date of communication of the order.
(2) The respondent No.2 shall be paid at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month with effect from 1st September, 2002. The amount for the month of September shall be paid by 10th of October and the amount for each subsequent month shall be paid by 10th of each succeeding month.
(3) The dispute before the Labour Court shall be concluded as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of communication of the present order.
(4) The amount paid to the respondent No.2 by virtue of the present order shall be adjusted against the dues of the respondent No.2.
12. The disposal of the matter in the manner indicated above shall not be construed as expression of opinion on the merits of the case either way and the Labour Court shall deal with the matter in accordance with law without being influenced by the observations earlier made by the Labour Court or in the present order.
13. Subject to the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, WMP.Nos.18450 and 14776 of 2000 are closed.