Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J. - (1.) The appellant above named being aggrieved by the judgment and order of dismissal of its writ petition by the learned Trial Judge dated 10th July, 2008 has brought this appeal. By the judgment and order impugned learned Trial judge upheld the award of the learned 7th Industrial Tribunal dated 30th of May, 1992 which was passed in favour of third respondent, viz., Secretary Garden Reach Ship Builders & Engineers Ltd. Staff Association on the issues referred to by the State as follows : "Whether Card Writers/ Record Keepers of the Company are entitled to same dearness allowance and other benefits as enjoyed by the Clerks of the Company. "
(2.) On the above issue earlier the learned Tribunal had passed an award dated 27th December, 1988 and the same was challenged by writ petition earlier by the appellant above named, and it was set aside by the learned Single Judge of this Court by an Order dated 19th July, 1990 and directed the learned Tribunal to hear the matter de novo observing certain irregularities and lacuna made therein. The appellant being aggrieved by the said portion of the order of remand preferred appeal against the order passed by the learned Single Judge and necessary interim relief for granting stay of de novo hearing was prayed by interim order dated 22nd February, 1991 but it was made clear award might be parties before us. Pursuant to the above direction the learned Tribunal heard de novo having received further evidence and decided the matter. The respondent No. 3 representing the aforesaid cadre viz. Card Writers/Record Keepers filed the written statement and substance of the same is as follows : "The aforesaid employees numbering about 315 since beginning have been doing the same nature of job as the clerical staff were doing. In spite of that they were not treated at par with the clerks."
(3.) Originally they were members of Mazdoor and Staff Union and another union namely the Company's Clerks' Union. Since their case was not expoused by the said union before the Company, they formed the aforesaid Union namely the Staff Association in the year 1982 and they put forward their demands of bringing themselves at par with the clerk and to give benefit from the date of their respective appointments. The company though having recognised the said Staff Association, did settle all the disputes with workmen inviting the said two unions but excluding the said Staff Association entering into two settlements on bipartite and another tripartite both dated 5th March, 1983. In the tripartite settlement their demand and/or case of parity was placed by the Mazdoor Union, and, with these two settlements some benefit has been given, but these settlements are not meeting their full demands which they have been pressing for a long time. Having found no alternative under pressure and coercion and having regard to their financial stringency all these members of the aforesaid cadre had to accept the benefit as given under the said two settlements dated 5th March, 1983. According to the said Association since they were not invited nor was it signatory terms and conditions purporting to resolve the dispute by the two settlements, so far the said group of staff are concerned, are not binding upon them. Other two unions were made parties, they filed their respective submissions before the learned Tribunal and supported the said two settlements and their operation stating that all the disputes of all the employees concerned have been peacefully resolved by bipartite and tripartite settlements by 5th March, 1983 and nothing remaining outstanding. The company filed counter-statement before the learned Tribunal and specifically agitated that there had and still has been no dispute for resolution as everything has been settled by bipartite and tripartite settlements as above and the same were and are binding upon them as they were represented by their Union namely Mazdoor Union. When there is no dispute the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to proceed with the matter on merit. It is said that each and every member of the aforesaid croup of staff has accepted the benefit without any dispute and protest. Actually they were appointed as peon and their nature of the job were not those of the clerk as such they were enjoying different scale of pay and also different rate of dearness allowance namely industrial rate whereas the clerks were given their dearness allowance at the rate paid by Bharat Chamber of Commerce and Industry, namely non-industrial rate. Hence the company wanted dismissal of the aforesaid case.;