TMI Blog1986 (4) TMI 345X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Delhi High Court held, in the Judgment under appeal, that the Section applied only to awards that were passed subsequent to the coming into force of this Section, namely 21st August, 1984. The appellant joined the Management of New Delhi Tuberculosis Centre, Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, New Delhi, as a Peon against a permanent regular post. He was thereafter promoted as a Daftry. By a Memorandum dated September 13, 1975, the Management informed the appellant that his services were not required with effect from September 13, 1975 afternoon and his services were thus terminated. He was paid one month's salary in lieu of notice. The appellant kept quite for three years, obviously because the Management Hospital, as per the law as it then stood, was not an industry. It was in the year 1978, that this Court gave the Judgment in Bangalore Water Supply case. Subsequent to that the appellant raised an industrial dispute. The Delhi Administration, as per its Order dated August 6, 1979 referred the following dispute for adjudication : Whether termination of the services of the workman Shri Bharat Singh is justified and/or illegal and if so to what relief is he entitled? |The Presi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 11-A and which according to him, was in pari materia with Section 17-B. The cases are Workmen of Firestone Tyre Rubber Co. of India Pvt. Ltd. v. The Management and Others, [1973] 3 S.C.R. 587 and Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation v. Shri P.H. Brahmbhatt, [1974] 2 S.C.R. 128. Before we deal with the rival contentions, it would be useful to read Section 17-B with which we are concerned. 17B. Where in any case, a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal by its award directs reinstatement of workman and the employer prefers any proceedings against such award in a High Court or the Supreme Court, the employer shall be liable to pay such workman, during the period of pendency of such proceedings in the High Court or the Supreme Court, full wages last drawn by him, inclusive of any maintenance allowance admissible to him under any rule if the workman had not been employed in any establishment during such period and an affidavit by such workman had been filed to that effect in such Court : Provided that where it is proved to the satisfaction of the High Court or the Supreme Court that such workman had been employed and had been receiving adequate remuneration durin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and reasons cannot be the ultimate guide in interpretation of statutes, it often times aids in finding out what really persuaded the legislature to enact a particular provision. The objects and reasons here clearly spell out that delay in the implementation of the awards is due to the contests by the employer which consequently cause hardship to the workmen. If this is the object, then would it be in keeping with this object and consistent with the progressive social philosophy of our laws to deny to the workmen the benefits of this Section simply because the award was passed, for example just a day before the Section came into force? In our view it would be not only defeating the rights of the workman but going against the spirit of the enactment. A rigid interpretation of this Section as is attempted by the learned counsel for the respondents would be rendering the workman worse off after the coming into force of this Section. This section has in effect only codified the rights of the workmen to get their wages which they could not get in time because of the long drawn out process caused by the methods employed by the Management. This Section, in other words, gives a mandate to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... B. Kadam, where this Court was considering the scope of Section 2-A of the Act. Section 2-A provides thus : where any employer discharges, dismisses, retrenches or otherwise terminates the services of an individual workman, any dispute or difference between that workman and his employer connected with, or arising out of, such discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination shall be deemed to be an industrial dispute notwithstanding that no other workman nor any union of workmen is a party to the dispute. Before this section was enacted, there was a bar for individual workman to raise an industrial dispute. It was this bar that the management put forward in that case. It was contended that the reference was bad since the dismissal took place before December 1, 1965, on which date the Section came into force. This Court did not accept this plea. The appellant's counsel submits that Section 2-A and Section 17-B are more or less similar in their phraseology and when this Court gave Section 2-A retrospectivity, Section 17-B should also be treated alike. This is what this Court said while dealing with Section 2-A: When the Section uses the words 'where any employ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ws : Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of dsicharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terms and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances of the case may require : Provided that in any proceeding under this section the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, shall rely only on the meterials on record and shall not take any fresh evidence in relation to the matter. By this Section, Tribunals were conferred with a new jurisdiction. The question arose whether this jurisdiction conferred for the first time by Section 11-A, could be extended retrospectively. While dealing with Section 11-A, this Court stated as follows in Workmen of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and conditions, if any as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge of dismissal as the circumstances of the case may require. We are, however, not concerned with the several questions which may arise thereunder, because the section itself will not apply to an industrial dispute referred prior to December 15, 1971, when section 11A was brought into operation. It was held by this Court in the Workmen of M/s. Firestone Tyre Rubber Co. of India (Pvt.) Ltd. v. The Management and Others, (1973 - 1 - LLJ 278) that this section has no retrospective operation on the pending references...... According to the respondents' counsel, these two decisions clearly cover the question involved in this appeal also. We feel that this submission cannot be accepted for more than one reason. Section 11-A, confers a jurisdiction on the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal to act in a particular manner which jurisdiction it did not have prior to the coming into force of Section 11-A. This is the reason why this Court held that Section 11-A cannot apply to proceedings before it came into force. The conferment o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
