CHAUHAN, J. - (1.) INSTANT writ petition has been filed against the Labour Court award dated 12. 12. 1996, contained in Annx. 6 to the writ petition, wherein the respondent workman has been held to be entitled for promotion on the post of Work Supervisor from the post of Mate.
(2.) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the respondent workman had been working as Mate with the petitioner establishment and it is alleged that certain persons junior to him were also working as Mate have been promoted as Work Supervisor in pursuance of an agreement/compromise/settlement reached between the management and the employees' union and thus, being aggrieved, the respondent workman raised industrial dispute, which has been allowed by the learned Labour Court vide impugned award dated 12. 12. 1996. THE award had been made after recording following finding of facts: THEre are statutory rules not providing promotion from the post of Mate to Work Supervisor, rather it provided that a Mate can be promoted to Work Supervisor Gr. II if he possesses 5 years' experience and for the post of Work Supervisor Gr. I, Work Supervisors Gr. II or Work Mistri Gr. II having 5 years' experience become eligible to be considered. The findings of facts recorded by the learned Labour Court stands fortified by the statutory rules annexed by the petitioner along with the petition as Annx. 2. However, the award has been made only on the ground that persons junior to the respondent workman has been promoted as Work Supervisor Gr. I in pursuance of a settlement reached between the Establishment and the workmen employees. There can be no dispute to the legal proposition that any agreement/settlement reached between the parties which runs in contravention of the statutory rules, is void; as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Nai Bahu vs. Lala Ramnarayan and others (1), wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: " 14. It is true that a decree for eviction of a tenant can not be passed solely on the basis of a compromise between the parties (K. K. Chari vs. R. M. Sheshadri (1973) 1 SCC 761 ). The Court is to be satisfied whether a statutory ground for eviction has been pleaded which the tenant has admitted by the compromise. Thus dispensing with further proof, on account of the compromise, the Court is to be satisfied about compliance with the statutory requirement on the totality of facts of a particular case bearing in mind the entire circumstances from the stage of pleadings upto the stage when the compromise is effected. " This view was further reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gokarajan vs. State of Andhra Pradesh Further, in the case of Natraj Studios Private Ltd. vs. Navrang Studios (3), Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under: " 17. The Bombay Rent Act is a welfare legislation aimed at the definite social objective of protection of tenants against harassment by landlords in various ways. It is a matter of public policy. The scheme of the Act shows that the conferment of exclusive jurisdiction on certain courts is pursuant to the social objective at which the legislation aims. Public policy requires that contracts to the contrary which nullify the rights conferred on tenants by the Act can not be permitted. Therefore, public policy requires that parties cannot also be permitted to contract out of the legislative mandate which requires certain kind of disputes to be settled by Special Courts constituted by the Act. It follows that arbitration agreement between parties whose rights are regulated by the Bombay Rent Act cannot be recognised by a court of law. " Thus, in view of the above, the compromise/settlement reached between the employer and the employees' union is declared to be nullity and can not be enforced.
(3.) THERE can be no quarrel with the legal proposition that Art. 14 of the Constitution is not meant to perpetuate an illegality or fraud and, if persons junior to the respondent workman had wrongly been promoted, the learned Labour Court ought not to have given the same benefit to the respondent workman, in view of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Sneh Prabha (4), Jaipur Development Authority vs. Daulat Ram Jain, (5), State of Haryana vs. Ram Kumar Mann (6), and other cases reported in M/s Faridabad Ct. Scan Centre vs. D. G. Health Services & Ors. (7), and Jalandhar Improvement Trust vs. Sampurah Singh More so, where the statutory rules provided for a particular mode of promotion and the award has been made in contravention thereof, the award must be held to be void and un-enforceable (vide N. S. Giri vs. Corporation of City of Mangalore and others Thus, in view of the above, the award of the learned Labour Court dated 12. 12. 1996 is set aside. The petition succeeds and is allowed. No order as to costs. . ;