Rajendra Babu, J. - (1.) Three applications under Section 31(3) read with Sections 34 and 61 of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') were filed either on 12-4-1988 or 21-6-1988 by the workers as per the list enclosed to the applications. It is pleaded therein that the appellant is not allowing them to do their job and the same should be held to be illegal, mala fide and unjustified and direct the appellant to allow them to do their job forthwith and pay their wages for the period they were not allowed to do their duty. In the applications, it was alleged that on 22-8-1986 the appellant had filed a case (No. 35/MPIR/1986) before the Labour Court, Durg praying that the strike resorted to by the workers with effect from 12-2-1986 may be held to be illegal and the workers may be directed to resume their duties. By an order made on 1-3-1986, the Labour Court directed the workmen, who were applicants in the applications, to resume their duties. However, the appellant was not allowing them to join duty though the workmen had reported for duty, and was also not paying any wages. It was alleged that the appellant had not issued charge sheet nor passed any order of termination of their services. Thus the action of the appellant in not allowing the workmen to resume their duties is wholly illegal, mala fide and unjustified, which amounts to unfair labour practice and the same is also in contravention of the Standing Orders and the Act. A written statement was filed in which preliminary objections were raised to the effect that the applications filed by the workmen are barred by limitation. It was asserted that the cause of action for the dispute, if at all, had arisen on 1-3-1986 when the Labour Court had directed the workmen not to continue the strike and to resume the work and the workmen sought to resume work but the same having been refused, an application is filed in the year 1988. The said application having been filed beyond two years from 1-3-1986 is clearly barred by limitation and deserves to be dismissed on that ground alone. On merits also, several pleas were raised with which we are not concerned for the present.
(2.) The appellant examined 10 witnesses to support its case. None of the workmen who were applicants before the Labour Court examined themselves. However, they examined only witness WW-1 Bhimrao Badge whose services had been terminated long back. Evidence of non-applicant witness No. 3, Shamboo Dayal Gupta was taken note of by the Labour Court to the effect that "it is correct to say that the workmen standing outside the factory were asking to take Dushyant Kumar who had been placed under suspension from duty and only then they would come for work only along with Dushyant Kumar." The said witness also stated that the said Dushyant Kumar was found sleeping in the Mill during working hours and after issuing a charge sheet was prevented from coming to duty. The Labour Court found that on 12-2-1986 charge sheet was issued to Dushyant Kumar and was prevented from joining duty, which was the cause of dispute. For about a month from 12-2-1986, the workmen were coming daily to the factory gate shouting slogans and preventing the other workers from coming to duty. The Labour Court found that the cause of action for the dispute arose from the time a show cause notice has been issued on 12-2-1986 to a workmen, namely, Dushyant Kumar, who was prevented from entering the factory under the oral orders of the Factory Manager. Thereafter, it was found that the workmen had the legal status to come to the factory and demand allowing of the said Dushyant Kumar to enter the factory and not having permitted them the cause of action for this matter arose yet again. From 12-2-1986 for about one month, the workmen had been coming daily at the factory gate and shouting slogans and had been preventing the other workmen coming for duty. Thus even as late as April, 1989 they were making efforts to come back for duty and thus there was a recurring cause of action for them to resume duty and, therefore, the time prescribed under the Act neither started and nor ended and thus the application filed by the workmen was within the period of limitation. The Labour Court after consideration of the merits of the matter, by a common award made on 1-6-1995, allowed partly the application filed by the workmen and directed the appellant to allow 155 workmen to be allowed to resume duty or if the workmen do not want to join duty, to pay a compensation of Rs. 17,500/- to each workman besides costs @ Rs. 500/- per workman however, without back wages.
(3.) Appeals were preferred to the Industrial Court by the appellant and by workmen to the extent of denying back wages. The Industrial Court took the view that though the workmen used to come to the gate of the mill they were still not willing to do the work. The Industrial Court proceeded to hold that the cause of action had arisen on 1-3-1986, the date on which the Labour Court declared the strike to be illegal vide its order in petition No. 35/MPIR/1986 on 1-3-1986, when the workmen had a duty to resume the work and taking that date for filing the appeal, it was clearly barred by limitation under Section 62 of the Act and on that basis, the Industrial Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the Labour Court and dismissed the applications of workmen.;