MANAGEMENT NATIONAL PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION CO LTD Vs. MASHOOR SINGH BALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE questions involved in this Letters Patent Appeal are; (i) whether an award published under section 17 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (the Act hereinafter) is enforceable when the reference was made by the incompetent authority; (ii) whether the writ petitioner -respondent herein is bound by the settlement dated: 22 -03 -1991 arrived at between the National Projects Construction Corporation Staff Association of which he was a member and all proceedings before the Labour Court and the award are infructuous; and (iii) whether the Writ Court in exercise of powers of judicial review was justified in directing execution of the award when the respondent took no steps to enforce the award either under S. 29 or S. 33 (c) of the Act. The Facts;

(2.) THE petitioner is a retrenched employee of the National Project Construction Corporation (the NPCC hereinafter). The undisputed facts are that as many as 470 employees were retrenched by the NPCC by order dated: 29 -08 -1987. The NPCC Staff Association challenged the retrenchment order in C. W. No. 2824/87 before the High Court of Delhi which was dismissed on May 19, 1988. This dismissal of the writ petition was challenged by the writ petitioners in Civil Appeal No. 85/1989 (arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 9798 of 1988) which was decided by the Supreme Court with the consent of the parties. It is admitted that the petitioner was a member of the NPCC Staff Association. In terms of this order the entire dispute was to be referred to the National Industrial Tribunal constituted under Section 7 (b) of the Act by the Central Government. However, before this judgment of the Apex Court, the writ petitioners it appears had approached the State Government under section 10 of the Act and the State Government vide SRO 87 dated: 15 -03 -1988 referred the question of legality of retrenchment of the respondents to the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal constituted under Section 7 and 7 (a) of the Act. The Labour Court issued the award on 05 -05 -1992 which was published in the Government Gazette on 09 -07 -1992. However, while these proceedings were pending before the Labour Court, a settlement was reached between the NPCC Staff Association and the NPCC Management on 22 -03 -1991. In terms of this settlement most of the retrenched workers were to be reinstated in service in six phases. The name of the petitioner also figures in the annexure to the aforesaid settlement. Accordingly, pursuant to this settlement vide letter dated: 06 -08 -1992, the petitioner was offered reinstatement on the condition that he will not get any wages, provident fund, gratuity, leave bonus, etc. w.e.f. the date of termination till the date he submitted his joining report at the new place of posting which was somewhere in Manipur. It is admitted that the petitioner did not accept this offer and instead continued to prosecute the proceedings pending before the Labour Court.

(3.) AFTER the award was published under section 17 of the Act, he approached the Government for implementation of the award and the Government in the Labour Department vide letter dated 04 -10 -1992 directed the respondent No. 2 to implement the award within a period of one month. However, the management of NPCC admittedly did not implement the award. Since the award was not implemented for quite sometime, the petitioner filed the writ petition with the prayer that respondent No. 2 be direct to implement the award dated 0505 -1992, in terms of the direction contained in the letter dated 14 -10 -1992 written by the State Government to the Management of NPCC.