- (1.) Both these writ petitions are by the Heavy Engineering Corporation Limited, the employer. The Employer feels aggrieved by the awards marked Annexure-1 in the two writ petitions. The two awards relate to some workmen similarly situated. The workmen were drillers. In the first case, the question that was referred to the Tribunal was whether the drillers named therein were entitled to promotion and if so, since which date and in what scale of pay. In the second case, the question referred was whether the drillers referred to therein have been superseded in promotion and if so what relief they were entitled to and since when. The Industrial Tribunal passed separate awards in the two cases. In the first case, on going through the award, prima facie, it is seen that the relevant legal aspects that were placed for consideration were ignored and nave not even been considered by the Tribunal and in the second award no precise relief has been granted even though an award has been passed upholding the claim of the workmen.
(2.) During the pendency of the references, a settlement was arrived at by the Management with Hatia Project Workers' Union, a recognised union in the industry. There is no dispute that the said settlement was communicated to the Labour Commissioner as contemplated and that it was implemented by the employer. The disputes were raised on behalf of the workmen concerned, essentially on the basis that they were not members of the Hatia Project Workers' Union and they were not bound by the settlement even though it was conceded that they had taken the benefits of that settlement. It was the case of the workmen that they can raise the dispute and pursue their claim notwithstanding the settlement. In the first case, the Tribunal merely stated the workmen had a case that they were not members of the concerned Union and were not parties to the settlement and in view of that, the reference had to be answered independent of that settlement even though it was recognised that they had received the benefit of the settlement and a direction was issued that the benefits received should be taken note of while granting them benefits of the award. In the second of the cases,. the case of the workmen that they had consented to the said settlement and that there was no quarrel with that settlement, though was noticed, its legal effect was lost sight of. We shall deal with these aspects at a subsequent stage.
(3.) Meanwhile, there was a proceeding initiated under Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act at the instance of the drillers in the industry. The claim of the workmen was upheld rejecting the contentions of the management. - Miscellaneous Appeals 28 to 31 of 1972 were filed before the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi. While those appeals were pending, the disputes were settled and an order based on a compromise was passed. The agreed scale and arrears were, paid on the basis of that compromise. As per that compromise, the drillers were placed in the wasting cadre. The drillers, again approached the authority under the Payment of Wages Act under Section 15(2) thereof. Their claim was allowed overruling the objections of the management. An appeal filed by the management was also dismissed. The management challenged the decision in C.W.J.C. Nos. 770 to 775 of 1980 before the Patna High Court. The Patna High Court noticed that the authorities had ignored the position that the drillers concerned were not promoted to the scale of Rs. 279 - 550/-. That was their claim and since they were not so promoted the order passed by the authority under Section 15(2) of the Act was illegal and without jurisdiction and it was liable to be quashed. Thus, the order passed under Section 15(2) of the Act was quashed. Though these judgments of the Patna High Court were challenged before the Supreme Court in Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal. We are now informed by counsel for the Management that the said Petitions for Special Leave have been dismissed.;