Karnataka High Court
Smt. Dhanalakshmi And Another vs The Reserve Bank Of India, Bombay And ... on 30 July, 1998
Equivalent citations: ILR1999KAR269, 1998(6)KARLJ603, (1999)ILLJ1018KANT
Bench: R.P. Sethi, K.R. Prasada Rao
ORDER
R.P. Sethi, C.J.,
1. Whether the legal heirs of a deceased workman can initiate and prosecute an industrial dispute? is a question of law sought to be adjudicated in these petitions referred to the Division Bench by an order of the learned Single Judge dated 4-12-1996.
2. The learned Counsel appearing for the workmen relying upon the judgment of this Court in Prema v Management, Hulkal Group Service Co-operative Society Limited, has submitted that the principle laid down therein can further be stretched enabling the legal heirs of the deceased workman to initiate conciliation proceedings notwithstanding the provisions of Section 10(8) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the 'Act'), which has been pressed into service by the employer for submitting that it restricted the rights of the legal heirs to the extents specified therein.
3. The Act is admittedly a social welfare legislation enacted for the purposes of industrial peace by protecting the interests of the workmen who were found to be subjected to the exploitation by the employers. In Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate. (Assam Chah Karmachari Sangha) v Dimakuchi Tea Estate , the Supreme Court has summed up the objects of the Act by holding that it intended for:
(i) promotion of measures for securing and preserving amity and good relations between the employer and workmen;
(ii) an investigation and settlement of industrial disputes, between employers and employers, employers and workmen or workmen and workmen, with a right of representation by registered trade union or a federation of trade unions or an association of employers or a federation of associations of employers;
(iii) prevention of illegal strikes and lock-outs;
(iv) relief to workmen in the matter of lay-off and retrenchment; and
(v) collective bargaining.
4. Liberal and not strict rule of construction is required to be followed while dealing with welfare statutes. Semantic luxuries should not be permitted to be misplaced in the interpretation of bread and butter statutes. As consistently held by the Courts, welfare statutes must, of necessity, receive a broad interpretation. It should not be lost sight of the fact that the welfare statutes in a welfare state are enacted with the object of promoting general welfare, which should not be dipped in the ocean of wrangles of technicalities. The Apex Court in Bharat Singh v Management of New Delhi Tuberculosis Centre, New Delhi, held that in interpretation of the welfare statutes:
"the Courts have steered clear of the rigid stand of looking into the words of the section alone but have attempted to make the object of the enactment effective and to render its benefits unto the persons in whose favour it is made".
5. The Courts in the Country have not adhered to strictly with the maxim actio personalis moritur cum persona. Such a maxim, which is a part of English law, has been dubbed as an unjust maxim, obscure in its origin, inaccurate in its expression and uncertain in its application. It has further been held to be resulting in grave injustice.
6. Keeping the aforesaid position of law in mind this Court in Prema's case, supra, held that right conferred in proceedings under Section 33(1)(b) or (2)(b) or 33(3) on legal representatives to come on record and contest cover the conciliation proceedings as well. Right for adjudication of dispute cannot be taken away by the death of a workman. In such cases the Court can mould the relief appropriately. Instead of directing reinstatement, the relief of pecuniary benefits can be granted. After referring to various provisions of the Act, this Court held:
"Under the very same section an application for permission or approval could also be pending before the Labour Court or the Tribunal or a National Tribunal in respect of an individual dispute Applying the provisions of Section 10(8) of the Act, the legal representatives of the workman would be permitted to contend the proceedings before the Labour Court, the Tribunal or the National Tribunal under Section 33(1)(b) or 2(b) or 33(3) of the Act. Therefore, it does not stand to reason why the very same legal representatives should be deprived of the right to contest the proceedings if an application is made before the Conciliation Officer under these three provisions of the Act. Therefore, the right of the legal representatives of the deceased workman to come on record in a conciliation proceedings could also be covered by interpreting the provisions of Section 10(8) of the Act liberally.
One more provision which requires to be noticed to understand the scheme of the Act is Section 18. Under Section 18(1) of the Act a settlement arrived at by agreement between the employer and the workman otherwise than in the course of the conciliation proceedings would be binding on the parties to the agreement. That is to say, a settlement under Section 2(p) of the Act will be binding on the parties and in that settlement it will be open to the legal representatives of the deceased workman, in case the workman dies during the subsistence of the settlement, to take the benefit under such settlement.
If the settlement relates to payment of certain monetary benefits to the workman, it cannot be said that the death of workman brings an end to that settlement and the legal representatives would be precluded from claiming the benefits under that settlement. The workman can claim the monetary benefits, if he is denied, by an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Act. That right could be worked out by his legal representatives in case he dies during the pendency of application under Section 33-C(2) of the Act in view of the provisions of Section 10(8) of the Act. The rights of the workman flow from the settlement. The loss to his estates is same when he dies during the subsistence of the settlement or when he dies during the pendency of his application under Section 33-C(2) of the Act. Section 33-C(1) of the Act also makes a provision for his legal heirs to claim any money due to the deceased workman under an award, settlement or Chapters V-A and V-B of the Act.
Under the scheme of the Act, an adjudication of an individual dispute is preceded by certain statutory requirements, namely, a raising of the dispute either under Section 2A, conciliation proceedings under the provisions of Section 12 and thereafter a reference by the State Government for adjudication of the dispute. If the workman is permitted to raise a dispute and initiate conciliation proceedings in view of the provisions of Section 2A of the Act, then his right to have an adjudication of the dispute, in case it is made to the Labour Court, cannot be taken away by his death since the award, if made in his favour, would enure to the benefit of his estate.
Section 18(3)(d) of the Act is an exception to the Law of Contract. Under the Law of Contract it is only the parties who are signatories to the contract will be bound by the terms of the contract. But, under Section 18(3)(d) in the case of a settlement in the course of conciliation, even workmen who subsequently become employees of the employer will get the benefit of the settlement and will be bound by the terms of the settlement. If this scheme of the Act is kept in view, the intention of the Parliament becomes clear. That is, it had no intention to abrogate or cut down the rights of the workman when it concerned the benefits due from his employer when he raises an industrial dispute. Therefore, could it be said that the legislature had the intention to deny the legal representatives to claim the benefit due to the estate of the deceased workman by omitting the words ''conciliation proceedings" under the amended provisions of Section 10(8) of the Act? Conciliation is also a proceeding, the act of making a reference is also a proceeding as they are legal steps or measures which precede the adjudication of the dispute".
7. We agree with the reasoning and the conclusions of the learned Judge who pronounced the judgment in Prema's case, supra, and are of the opinion that the same principles can be extended to the benefit of the legal heirs of the deceased workman for the purposes of initiating the industrial dispute under the provisions of the Act.
8. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Smt. Anjilamma and Others v The Labour Court-III at Hyderabad and Another, after referring to various judgments such as.-
1.Bharathamma and Others v The Labour Court and Another .
2. Rameshwar Manjihi (deceased) through his son Lakhiram Manjihi v Management of Sangramgarh Colliery and Others.
3. Girijanandini Devi v Bijendra Narain Choudhary.
4. Gwalior Rayons, Mavoor v Labour Court and Others.
5. Shree Meenakshi Mills Limited v State of Madras .
6. Bank of Baroda v Its Workmenand
7. Sitabai v Auto Engineers and Others.
and after quoting Clerk and Lindsell on Torts (15th Edition) dealing with survival of causes of action state, concluded:
"In the result and for the foregoing reasons I hold that legal heirs/legal representatives of a deceased workman are entitled to institute an industrial dispute before the Labour Court questioning the validity of termination of services of such workman even after the death of such workman under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is not necessary that such legal heirs/representatives should be 'workmen' within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act and in fact they are not and cannot be workmen within the meaning of that term unless in a given case they are also workmen under the same employer. The essence of the matter is that if on death of a workman any or all causes of action survives/survive for the benefit of estate left behind by him, it is competent for the legal heirs of such workman, as the custodian of the estate of the deceased workman, either to continue the pending proceedings instituted by the deceased workman, or to institute the proceedings after the death of the workman before the Industrial Court. With the death of a workman, an industrial dispute instituted by him or an industrial dispute capable of being instituted by him will not die with him and despite his death such a dispute remains to be an industrial dispute within the meaning of Section 2(k) of the Act as contemplated under sub-section (8) of Section 10 of the Act and the legal heirs to and the administrators of, the estate of the deceased have locus standi to prosecute such dispute either by continuing the pending proceedings or by instituting fresh proceedings in the Industrial Courts as representing the deceased's estate and for the benefit of the estate. In the present case, the cause of action which accrued to the workman on March 30, 1989 to institute Industrial Dispute in the Labour Court for claiming reliefs of lump sum compensation in lieu of reinstatement, back wages did not die with the workman on December 28, 1990 but did survive for the benefit of the estate left behind by him. Therefore, I hold that the industrial dispute raised by the petitioners before the Labour Court is competent and maintainable".
9. We do not want to burden this judgment by reproducing the extracts of various pronouncements and the views of jurists noticed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court as after perusal of all those judgments we fully agree with the reasoning and the conclusions arrived at by the learned Judge in that case.
10. The references are answered accordingly holding that the legal heirs of deceased workman can initiate and prosecute the industrial dispute as there does not exist any statutory bar for such a course being adopted and followed. We do not agree with the submission made on behalf of the employer that in view of the provisions of Sections 2(k), 2A and 10(8) of the Act, the conciliation proceedings cannot be initiated or continued after the death of the workman. We are of the opinion that despite a workman's death, the points sought to be settled by his legal heirs remain an industrial dispute for the purposes of adjudication under the Act. Section 10(8) is a beneficiary provision made for the workman prescribing that despite his death, the proceedings would not lapse even without the formal application of bringing on record his legal representatives.
11. Under the circumstances, the writ petitions are allowed, rule issued is made absolute and the impugned orders/endorsements are quashed. The third respondent is directed to take up the matter in conciliation and conciliate the same in accordance with the provisions of the Act. If the Management does not concede the demand of the petitioners, the aforesaid respondent shall forward a failure report under Section 12 of the Act to the appropriate Government for making reference to the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court under Section 10 of the Act.
Parties to bear their own costs.