Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. It would be relevant to mention that Civil Appeal 3769 of 1990 was dismissed by this Court in default.

7. This appeal by the Union of India is against the judgment of the Tribunal dated August 10, 1989 in QA 952/86 and also against the order of the Tribunal dated April 10, 1990 rejecting the review application filed by the Union of India.

8. At this stage it would be useful to have a look at the relevant provisions of the JCM Scheme. The Scheme - on the pattern of the Whitely Machinery in the U.K. - was recommended by the Second Pay Commission. After working out the details in consultation with the leaders of the employees, the Scheme was introduced in the year 1966, At that time it broadly covered 2.5 out of 2.6 million regular civil employees of the Central Government. The Scheme is a voluntary one and the Government as well as the Staff Associations/Unions participating in the Scheme are required to subscribe a Declartion of Joint Intent which, inter alia, provides for abjuration of agitational methods by the staff Union/Association for redressal of their grievances. Clauses 16 to 21 of the JCM Scheme which provide for the Machinery of Arbitration are reproduced hereunder:

10. We are of the view that after the adoption of the resolutions by the two Houses of Parliament a new situation had arisen. It is no doubt correct that the passing of the resolutions by itself, could not have the effect of modifying the judgment of the Tribunal but it was certainly a valid ground for filing the review petition. The Tribunal directed the enforcement of the award with effect from September 22, 1982 because by that date the procedure envisaged under Clause 21 of the JCM Scheme had not been followed. The Tribunal did not and could not have restrained the Government of India from invoking the said procedure. The Government of India, ordinarily, is bound by the award given by the Board unless the same is modified or rejected by the Parliament. As stated above, immediately after the judgment of the Tribunal, the Cabinet took a decision on August 23, 1989 and the two Houses of Parliament passed the resolutions modifying the award. The situation which emerged as a result of the resolutions passed by the two Houses of Parliament was not before the Tribunal in OA 952/86. That was brought before the Tribunal by the Union of India by filing the Review Petition. It is, therefore, the judgment of the Tribunal in the Review Petiton which dealt with the question before us. Even if it is assumed that the judgment of the Tribunal in OA 952/86 has achieved finality it is of no consequence because the issue before us was not before the Tribunal at that stage. The question for our consideration is whether the procedure under Clause 21 of the JCM Scheme has been legally followed, if so, with what effect. This question could not have been and was not the subject-matter of civil appeal No. 3769/90. In any case, the said appeal was not decided by this Court on merits. It was dismissed for non-prosecution and in defualt. There is no adjudication by this Court on the merits of the controversy involved in the said appeal. We, therefore, sec no force in the preliminary contention of the learned Counsel and, as such, we reject the same.

12. We are of the view that the reliance by the Tribunal on the judgments of this Court in Madan Mohan Pathak v. Union of India [1978] SCC (L & S) 103, L.I.C. v. D.J. Bahadur [1981] SCC (L & S) 111 and A.V. Nachanc v. Union of India [1982] SCC (L & S) 53, is wholly misplaced. These judgments have no relevance whatsoever to the facts of the present case.

13. In the present case the award given by the Board had not achieved finality in the sense that it was open to the Government of India to have invoked the procedure envisaged under Clause 21 of the JCM Scheme. The judgment of the Tribunal directing the implementation of the award could only mean that the Government of India was bound to implement the award subject to its power to have it modified in terms of Clause 21 of the JCM Scheme. The judgment of the Tribunal could not be read to mean that the Government of India was precluded from proceeding under Clause 21 of the JCM Scheme.

14. The matter can be examined from another angle. Government of India took a decision on November 1.1, 1988 to implement the award with effect from January I, 1988. That decision was taken by the Government of India without invoking the procedure under Clause 21 of the JCM Scheme. Till August 10, 1989 when the Tribunal decided OA 952/86 the decision of the Government of India was sub-judice before the Tribunal. While interpreting the provisions of the JCM Scheme, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that without resorting to the provisions of Clause 21 of the JCM Scheme the Government of India was bound to implement the award as given by the Board and the Government of India had no power In alter the date of implementation of the award to the detriment of the respondents. In pith and substance, the question before the Tribunal was whether the Government of India without resorting to the provisions of Clause 21 of the JCM Scheme could have changed the terms of the award to the disadvantage of the respondents. The Tribunal answered the question in the negative. Immediately thereafter the Government of India in accord with the judgment of the Tribunal placed the matter before the Cabinet which took the decision on August 23, 1989 to the effect that a resolution be moved in the Parliament under Clause 21 of the JCM Scheme for implementing the award with effect from January 1, 1988. In this view of the matter it is wholly futile to say that the Parliament had no power to modify the terms of the reference after the judgment of the Court. We are of the view that the Tribunal fell into patent error in dismissing the review petition on the basis of the misplaced - reliance on the three judgments of this Court (supra).