M.H.Beg, J. - (1.) A dispute arising between the etitioriing company and its four employees, Sohan Lal, Kapoor Chand, Chhatar Pal and Beni Ram, opposite parties 3 to 6 has come up on the third occasion before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution Act. The petitioning company seeks a writ of certiorari to quash the orders dated 7-3-1962 and 13-10-1962 passed by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, opposite party No. 1 and the Second Additional District Judge, Agra, opposite party No. 2 who heard the appeal from the order of the opposite party No. 1 and dismissed it. The opposite party No. 1, hereinafter referred to as the Authority and the appellate Court, hereinafter referred to as the Judge (Agra), interpreted an award dated 25-4-1951 given by the Regional Conciliation Board in an industrial dispute between the petitioning company and its 25 employees out of whom the four opposite parties 3 to 6 were reinstated ana awarded half the wages for the period they had remained unemployed due to the illegal discharge of the opposite parties from service on 4-1-1951 on the ground of need for retrenchment. The need was held to be genuine but four employees were held to have been discharged in violation of an agreement laying down that retrenchment, if necessary, will begin with the junior-most employees. The operative part of the order of the Regional Conciliation Board was: "I, therefore, direct their reinstatement from the date of their dismissal as to maintain continuity of service. Further, I award them half the wages that they would have earned by working for the period they remained unemployed as compensation." This award having been given on 25-4-1951 became enforceable "on the expiry of 30 days from the date of its publication under Section 17" as provided by Section 17-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It was the case of the opposite parties 3 to 6 that they became entitled to full wages from 25-5-1951 under this award.
(2.) The petitioning company relied on two subsequent orders. The first of these was an interim order dated 17-7-1951 made upon an application under Section 14 of the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act. 1950, by which it was provided that the implementation of the award is stayed on condition that the petitioning company paid Rs. 250 to each of the four workers provided the workers furnished sureties for the return of this amount if the appeal filed by the petitioning company was allowed. The second order upon which the petitioning company relied was the decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal published on 16th June 1952, The operative part of this decision was : "We accordingly maintain the award in respect of them. The result is that this appeal by the company is also dismissed. The company must pay to the respondents in this appeal, namely Cal 169/ 51 the sum of Rs. 50 as costs." By the same order the appeal preferred by the workmen was also dismissed. The result thus was that the award given by the Regional Conciliation Board had been maintained. The contention advanced on behalf of the petitioning company was that the implementation of the award itself was postponed during the pendency of the appeal so that the workmen were entitled to half the wages only from 4-1-1951 to 25-6-1952 when they were actually reinstated.
(3.) It may now be mentioned that neither the petitioning company nor the workmen tried to get the order of the Appellate Tribunal clarified. The workmen opposite parties 3 to 6 felt aggrieved by payment to them of only half the wages from 25-5-1951 to 25-6-1952. The four respondents, therefore, moved the Authority at Agra on 22-8-1953 under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, and alleged that half the wages of 25-5-1951 to 25-6-1952, which were due to them under the terms of the award which, had maintained the continuity of their service, were wrongly deducted by the petitioning company. On 9-3-1954, the Authority allowed the claim of the workmen to some extent. The petitioning company then filed an appeal before the Judge, Agra which was allowed on 19-11-1954. The result was that the opposite parties 3 to 6 moved this Court by means of writ petition No. 340 of 1954. The order passed on that writ petition has not been produced. The petition, however, states that this Court allowed the writ petition and remanded the case for re-hearing before the Judge, Agra. The Judge (Agra) then framed four issues, and on 22-10-1956, remitted the case for trial to the Authority. On 20-5-1957, the Authority then dismissed the application made on behalf of the four workmen on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to go into the matter at all. It evidently accepted the petitioning company's submission that the whole question could be determined only by the Labour Tribunal. This made it necessary for the four workmen the opposite parties 3 to 6 to come up to this Court for a second time, by means of a Writ Petn. No. 2254 of 1957, D/- 15-3-1960 (All) by V.D. Bhargava, J. It was held by this Court that the authority had jurisdiction to determine all questions arising out of the interpretation of the award which affected the claim to wages or the claim of admissible deductions from wages. A copy of the judgment of V.D. Bhargava, J. is Annexure E to the writ petition and it enables me to dispose of the first objection put forward against the decisions of opposite parties 1 and 2 which are assailed by the present writ petition.;