Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(30) It is not necessary to deal in details with Mr. Singhavi's grievence that the directions given by the Chariman furnish intrinsic evidence to show that the Chairman developed a bias against the Union. It will be sufficient to call attention to a few of the directions given by the Chairman, to demonstrate that these directions limit the scope of the agreement and substantially altr its terms. For example, whereas under the agreement of the 9th May, the revised scales of pay and the revised grades were to be given retrospective effect from Ist January 1959, by Direction No. I, the Chairman has ordered that the benefit of the agreement should be extended only to such employees who were on the pay roll of the Corporation on the date of publication of the award. By Direction No. 2 the Chairmanhas directed that the bendfit of agreemnt under demand I E (b) should be given only to those employees who had become permanent on or before 1st January 1959 and who had put in a service of at least one year on the 1st Janrary 1959. The agreement contains on such qualifications. Then again, whereas the agreement, provides that retrospective effect to new scales be given from 1st january 1959, the Chariman by Direction No.6 has decreed that the dearness allowance, the overtime allowance and other allowance be paid with effect from the date of publication of the award. We must mention that we are not prepared to hold that the Chairman has deliberately given these directions with a view to favouring the Corporation but the circumstance that someof the directions given by the Chairman do in fact cut down the benefits which the workers were entitled to receive under the agreement only shows that the Union has reason to believe that the Chairman has approached his task with a bias against the workers.

(33) As regards the first objection, it seems to us that far from participating in the proceedings before the Committee, the petitioners indicated in no uncertain manner at the earliest opportunity that he Chariman had forfeited their confidence. The Chariman left India on the 14th of May 1960 and returned in the middle of August. The first meeting of the Committee after the return of the Chariman to India was fixed on the 25th August. Mr. Lobo and Mr. Menon who represented the Union on the Committee of Arbitration refused to attend that meeting as statd by the Chairman in paragraph 22 of his award. The Union also followed suit with the result that no business could be transacted in the meeting of the 25th. On the 30th August, the Union filed a writ petition on the original Side of the High Court asking that the Chariman be restrained from acting further in the matter on the ground that he had accepted hospitality of the Corporation. It is, therefore, imposible to hold that the petitioners lay by and acquiesced in the attitude of the Chariman.

(34) There is no substance in the second objection, as the petition which was filed on the original Side was not dismissed on merits. Permission was sought for the withdrawal of that petition in view of the note recorded by the Law Minister on the 1st September, 1960 and the petition was eventually dismissed for non-prosecution on the 7th September. The earlier petition not having been decided on merits, the dismissal there of cannot operate a bar to the present petition.

(35) The third objection raised by Mr. Khambatta is that the petiioners cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate, that having obtained benefits under the award of the Chairman, it is not permissible to the petitioners to assail the award. The Chairman declared his award ( that is to say, the agreement of 9th May, 1960, on which were superimposed the directions of the Chairman) on the 1st November, 1960, and the same was published in the Official Gazette on the 7th November, 1960. The note recorded by the Law Minister shows that the Corporation has agreed to implement the agreement of the 9th May as interepreted by the Chairman. The Corporation, therefore, proveeded to obtain the sanction of th Central Government to the new conditions of service of the workers as required by section 45(2)(b) of the Air Corporations Act, 1953. In anticipation of the sanction, the Corporation served individual notices on the employees between the Ist and 10th January, 1961, that it proposed to implement the agreement of the 9th May, 1960, as interpreted by the Chairman. The sanction of the Central Government was obtained on the 30th January, 1961, and the salaries or wages were paid ti the employees in accordance with the directions of the Chairman, or or about the 1st February , 1961. Mr. Khambatta submits that by accepting the paymene the employees had obtained the benefit of the award of theChairman and that therefore they cannot be permitted to turn round and challenge the award. All that is necessary to state in answer is that no the 9th January, 1961. The present petition was filed to challenge the award of the Chariman. It is true that the workers did not send any reply to the individual notices served on them by the Corporation but they made a more effective reply by filing the present petition. That the Corporationabided by the award of the Chariman is not matter merit, for in doing so, it only honoured its commitment to the Law Minister. The workers on their part, chose the course foreseen in that note.

"We further agree that the unanimous decision of the arbitrators shall be binding on us. In the event of there being no unanimity amongst the Arbitrators, the decision to be made by the independent Chariman nominated by Government will be deemed to be an Award made by a single and sole Arbitrator."

As required by sub-section (3) of section 10A, after the copy of the agreement was forwarded to the Government it was published by the Government. On 27th of June, 1959, the State Government nominated respondent No. 1, a retired Judges of this Court to be the independent Chariman. The two representatives of the Corporation were respondents Nos. 2 and 3 and those of the Union respondents Nos. 4 and 5. On the 29th of April, 1960, hearing on all the demands except demand Nos. 46, 47, 52, 53, and 54 was closed, and it seems that respondent No.1 had commenced writing of his Award. On the 9th of May , 1960, the four arbitrators nominatted by the parties arrived at an agreement on all the demdnds except demand No. 20. They agreed that demand No. 20 should be settled by the Chariman as the sole arbitrator. This agreement was termed 'consent Award' and was forwarded to the Chariman on the same date under the signature of all the four arbitrators. The Chariman was of the view that this agreement was not legal, was not in proper shape and was vague in many particulars and would create further industrial unrest and disputes. He was also of the view that the four arbitrators on the Committee of arbitration had no right to so decide the matter. He though that as he did not agree with the decision he was entitled under the terms of reference to act as the sole and independent arbitrator, and proceeded to do so.