D.K.Seth - (1.) THE respondent No. 4, a workman under the petitioner was appointed on 23.6.1969 where his date of birth was recorded as 1st March, 1931. According to Sri Ranjit Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner, the workman had never applied for correction of the service record and had raised a dispute only on 28.3.1986 out of which a reference was made on 15.4.1988, giving rise to the Adjudication case No. 74 of 1988 pending before the labour court (V), U. P. Kanpur. It is alleged that by an order dated 20.3.1989, the labour court had granted an interim order to the extent that the employer shall not super-annuate the workman till the proceedings of the case is concluded. This order has been challenged by means of present writ petition.
(2.) SRI Ranjit Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the writ petition contends that the interim order has virtually granted the whole relief involved in the dispute and such an interim order could not have been passed by the Tribunal even though prima facie case has been made out. According to him, no application for correction of age Is maintainable after five years from the date of appointment. Therefore, the interim order should not have been passed. It appears that by an order dated 4.4.1989 passed in the present writ petition, it was clarified that the employer may not take work from the workman but the employer would have to pay salary to the workman on due date. Sri S. C. Shukla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 4 on the other hand contends that there was no infirmity in the impugned order, inasmuch as according to him, the Tribunal had fixed 5.4.1989 for hearing of the dispute/case continuously and by means of interim order, interest of the workman has been protected, in view of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. It was the creation of the employer himself, by reason whereof the dispute has not yet been decided. Therefore, the employer could not have any grievance against the said interim order.
(3.) SRI Ranjit Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention has relied on the decision in the case of Gopal Krishna Sinha v. State of U. P. and others, 1992 ACJ (2) 969 ; U. P. Junior Doctors' Action Committee and others v. Dr. B. Sheetal Nandwani and others, 1992 (Supp.) 1 SCC 680 ; Assistant Collector of Central Excise v. Dunlop India Limited and others, AIR 1985 SC 330 and Gujarat Water Resources Development Corporation Ltd. v. Parvin Kumar N. Makwana and another, 1992 JT (Supp) SC 778 and contended that the interim relief granting whole relief, should not be granted. There is no doubt about the said proposition. This is an established principle of law which has been enunciated by Hon'ble Supreme Court time and again. But such proposition cannot be said to be an absolute proposition, in the facts and circumstances of the case, when the circumstances so warrant that the interim order is necessary to be passed, in the interest of justice and without such interim order, the entire matter might become infructuous. There are extraordinary cases where such an interim order may be warranted but for that, adequate protection is also necessary. As submitted by Sri Shukla, relying on the decision in the case of The Management Hotel Imperial New Delhi and others v. Hotel Workers Union, AIR 1959 SC 1342 and various other cases that the Tribunal has power to grant interim order also, appears to be sound. Sri Ranjit Saxena also cannot deny or dispute the said proposition. Admittedly, the Tribunal has power to adjudicate on the point of reference and matter incidental thereto by reason of sub-section (4) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. The interlocutory order incidental to the main dispute can be passed by the learned Tribunal. An interim order cannot be said to be not incidental to the dispute.;