Madras High Court
Ramadoss G. And Ors. vs Management Of Tansi Die Castings, ... on 17 November, 2000
Equivalent citations: (2001)ILLJ706MAD, (2001)1MLJ123
Author: P. Sathasivam
Bench: P. Sathasivam
JUDGMENT P. Sathasivam, J.
1. With regard to disallowed claim in the award passed by the First Additional Labour Court, Madras-104 in C.P. No.529 of 1991, dated November 6, 1992, the workman has filed W.P. No. 13051 of 1993. Aggrieved by the award of the Principal Labour Court, Madras in C.P. No. 875 of 1993, dated March 27, 1997, the management of Tansi the Castings, Chennai-32, has filed W.P. No. 11664 of 1998. Since common questions are involved in both the impugned orders, the above writ petitions are being disposed of by the following common order.
2. Inasmuch as we are concerned with the orders passed in the claim petitions, it is unnecessary to refer the order of dismissal passed by the management and the ultimate award passed by the First Additional Labour Court, Madras in I.D. No.459 of 1987, dated November 30, 1990, reinstating the workman with back-wages and continuity of service. Though the management has filed a writ petition challenging the said award, it is stated that the same was dismissed by this Court even at the admission stage, hence, the award in J.D. No. 459 of 1987 has become final.
3. According to the workman, since the management failed to implement the award, he was forced to file claim petition in C. P. No. 529 of 1991, for computation of monetary benefits before the First Additional Labour Court, Madras. In the said claim petition, workman has claimed monetary loss of Rs. 2,57,614.10 for his non-employment from April 1982 to March 1991 under various heads such as pay, H.R.A., C.C.A., bonus, night shift allowance, etc., and also interest at the rate of 16 per cent per annum on the said amount. The Labour Court disallowed the claim of interest as well as allowances claimed. Out of the total claim of Rs. 2,57,614.10, the Labour Court has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,39,347.65.
4. As far as W.P. No. 13051 of 1993 is concerned, the following points are to be considered:
(i) Whether the petitioner/workman is entitled to interest for the award amount as claimed by him.
(ii) Whether the workman is entitled to allowances.
5. Regarding the first claim, namely, interest, admittedly, the award in I.D. No. 459 of 1987 on the file of the First Additional Labour Court, Madras, does not contain any clause for interest. Likewise, there is no specific provision enabling the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal to award interest. In this regard, Sri S. Kanniah, learned counsel for the workman has very much relied on the following decisions:
(i) E.I.D. Parry (India) Ltd. v. Industrial Tribunal, Madras, and others 1991-I-LLJ-250 (Mad-DB).
(ii) Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Union of India, ; and
(iii) Vepar Vikas Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Ghanshyam Lallubhai Patel 2000-11-LLJ-788 Court.
6. In the first case, namely, E.I.D. Parry India Ltd. (supra), the Division Bench of this Court has held that Industrial Tribunal is having powers wider than a civil Court in a matter of adjudication of dispute and its jurisdiction to grant interest. Their Lordships have further held that Industrial Tribunal is a Court within the meaning of Interest Act, 1839. In the light of the said Division Bench decision, it is clear that both the Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals are Courts within the meaning of Interest Act, 1839, and they are having powers wider than a civil Court in the matter of adjudication of an industrial dispute and can award interest in appropriate cases.
7. In the case reported in Ghaziabad Development Authority, (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that interest on equitable grounds can be granted in appropriate cases. Their Lordships also held that the rate of interest awarded in equity should neither be too high nor too low, Further, the said decision arose out of breach of contract and a complaint was filed before the M. R. T. P. Commissioner.
8. In the case reported in Vepar Vikas Co-op. Bank Ltd. (supra), the learned single Judge of the Gujarat High Court, while dismissing the writ petition filed by the Co-operative Bank against the order of the Labour Court, passed an order in an application filed by the employee under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, directing the management of the co-operative bank to pay the amount with 9 per cent interest.
9. It is clear from the above decisions that though there is no provision in the Act as observed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case reported in E. I. D. Parry India Ltd. (supra), Labour Courts/Industrial Tribunals are having wider powers than civil Courts in a matter of adjudication of industrial dispute and accordingly in appropriate cases they can award interest. Likewise, the same authorities, on equitable grounds can grant interest in appropriate cases. Further, while confirming the award of the Labour Courts/Industrial Tribunals, this Court can also direct the management to pay reasonable interest for the unpaid amount.
10. Sri M. Vijayan, learned counsel for the management, by relying on the judgment of NAINARSUNDARAM, J. (as he then was) reported in Management of Nathan's Press, Madras v. K. Krishnan, 1993-III-LLJ(Suppl)-476 (Mad), would contend that in the absence of provision for interest in the main award itself, the Labour Court under Section 33-C(2) of the Act cannot award interest. While considering the question, namely, whether Labour Court can award interest in an application filed under Section 33-C(2) of the Act, (the learned Judge has held thus, in Para. 4 in 1993-III-LLJ (Suppl)-476 at 477:
"4. The second grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioner is directed against the award of interest. Learned counsel would submit that the second respondent is not a civil Court on the question of interest......"
Such a view has been expressed by VERRASWAMI, J. (as he then was) in Krishnamurthy v. Mail 1964-II-LLJ-88 (Mad). The learned Judge further observed as follows in 1993-III-LLJ (Suppl)-476 at 477:
"4. Interest is not one of the items that appear to be competent for the Labour Court to go into under that section unless it has been provided for in an award or a settlement. That is not the case here. The order of the Labour Court in so far as it related to interest cannot be sustained. It is not claimed here that the award passed in the instant case provided for payment of interest as such. In this context, one has to take note of the scope of Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, under which alone the present claim petition has come to be filed. The Labour Court, while making the computation has got only role of an executing Court, and it cannot go beyond the award unless the question is incidental to working the relief on the basis of the award. The heads of claims could be based only on the award, and in the absence of any provision for payment of interest in the award, there could not be any claim for such interest and countenancing thereof by the second respondent in the present case. The claim for interest could not be stated to be incidental to computation of the benefits given under the award. I find the view expressed in Krishnamurthy v. Mail (supra), has been taken note of and followed by a single Judge of the High Court of Delhi in Union of India v. Central Government Labour Court 1985(1)LLN 279. In this view, the award of interest by the second respondent has got to be discountenanced...."
Though the decision of NAINAR SUNDARAM, J. (as he then was) appears to be conflicting with the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in E.I.D. Parry India Ltd. (supra) the learned Judge has concluded that in the absence of any provision for interest in the main award itself, the same cannot be granted while considering claim petition filed under Section 33-C(2) of the Act. As rightly contended, the Labour Court can determine and compute as per the award secured by the parties. In the absence of any direction for payment of interest in the award, in the claim petition filed under Section 33-C(2) of the Act the Labour Court cannot impose or award interest. In other words, the claim for interest could not be stated to be incidental to computation of benefits given in the award. I am in respectful agreement with the view expressed by NAINAR SUNDARAM, J. (as he then was).
11. Similar view has been expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ganesh Razak and Anr. . After considering the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, Their Lordships have held that the Labour Court cannot adjudicate dispute relating to entitlement of workmen to parity in wages. Their Lordships further held that power under Section 33-C(2) of the Act can be exercised only when entitlement has been earlier adjudicated upon or recognised by employer. Their Lordships further held that its jurisdiction is similar to that of executing Court.
12. As stated earlier, admittedly, award in I.D. No.459 of 1987, does not contain any clause for interest. In such circumstance, though the Labour Court has power to award interest in appropriate cases, in the absence of any provision in the main award itself for interest, the same cannot be granted while computing the amount in an application filed under Section 33-C(2) of the Act. In the light of the above conclusion, I am unable to accept the argument of the learned counsel for the workman with regard to interest and accordingly the same is rejected.
13. Coming to allowances such as night shift allowance, encashment of shoes, washing allowance, casting allowance, etc., the same question has been elaborately considered by N.V. BALASUBRAMANIAM, J., in W.P. No. 9244 of 1991, dated September 14, 1999. Before the learned Judge, it was contended that inasmuch as there was no proof for the workman offered himself to join duty after the award became operative, he is not entitled to wages for the festival holidays, tea allowance, annual leave with wage encashment thereof, lunch allowance subsidy, as he was not actually working during the period for which he has made a claim. After considering relevant provisions from the I.D. Act as well as catena of decisions of various High Courts and the Apex Court, the learned Judge has held that the workman is not entitled to claim the same as part of wage inasmuch as he had actually not worked. I am in respectful agreement with the view expressed by the learned Judge and I hold that the employee concerned would not be entitled to claim such allowance unless he has actually worked and then only it would become an allowance which forms part of the wages. In other words, where there is no actual service, the question of payment of such allowance would not arise. Accordingly, I sustain the conclusion arrived by the Labour Court and reject the contra argument made by the learned counsel for the workman.
14. Coming to the writ petition filed by the management in W.P. No. 11664 of 1998, inasmuch as the Labour Court has not granted interest, it is unnecessary to consider the same. Even otherwise, the conclusion of mine, as stated, above, is applicable to the issue in question. According to the learned counsel for the management, their company was closed on January 31, 1992, and the workman was entitled only to Rs. 20,926 and the same had been paid to the workman as per the direction of this Court. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the workman would contend that in the absence of any documentary evidence, the workman was entitled to wages up to September 1993. In this regard, it is brought to my notice the agreement under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, between the management and the workmen, dated January 31, 1992. The said agreement was signed by the management as well as the representatives of the employees and the same was executed in the presence of Labour Officer No. III, Kuralagam, Chennai-108. The said agreement finds place at page 1 of the typed set filed by the management in W.P.No. 11664 of 1998. Though it is stated that the said document has not been placed before the Labour Court while considering the claim petition, the contents and the genuineness of the agreement has not been seriously disputed. Apart from this, one Basheer Ahmed, an Officer of the company, has been examined as R.W 1 in the claim petition. He would specifically state that the company has been closed on January 31, 1992, hence, according to him, the workman is not entitled to back-wages as claimed in the petition. He would norther state that closure notice has been sent to the workman under Exhibit R-3 and the same has been received by the workman under Exhibit R-4. Though no document has been filed evidencing closure of the company, in the light of oral evidence of R.W.-1, closure notice and acknowledgment by the workman, namely, Exhibits R-3 and R-4 and after perusing agreement under Section 12(3) of the Act between the management and workmen, dated January 31, 1992, I am unable to accept the conclusion arrived by the Labour Court. The Labour Court failed to take note of relevant materials and committed an error in passing an order in favour of the workman as claimed. At the most, the workman was entitled wages and other allowable benefits only up to January 31, 1992 and in the money value it was fixed at Rs. 20,926 which had also been paid to the workman.
15. In the light of what is stated above, Writ Petition No. 13051 of 1993, filed by the workman, is dismissed and W.P. No. 11664 of 1998, filed by the management, is allowed to the extent mentioned above. No costs. Consequently, connected Writ Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 20054 of 1993, 17758, 25512 and 25513 of 1998 are closed.