Heard Ms.Archana Amin, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner Corporation. The petitioner Corporation has challenged the award dated 7th February, 2000 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Nadiad in Reference No.106/1998. Ms.Amin, learned advocate on behalf of the petitioner Corporation has raised contention that the dispute has been raised after period of 15 years by the respondent workman and even though the tribunal has granted benefits with effect from 1st August, 1973. She further submitted that the tribunal has committed gross error in granting such relief in favour of the respondent workman. However, no other contention has raised by the learned advocate Ms.Amin on behalf of the petitioner Corporation.
I have considered submissions made by learned advocate Ms.Amin. Dispute has been raised by the respondent workman that he is entitled to stepping up with effect from 1st August, 1973 in pursuance of the settlement dated 23rd November, 1984 under Service Regulation 65[e]. In support of the demand, statement of claim has been filed by the respondent workman vide Exh.8 and written statement was filed by the petitioner Corporation vide Exh.14. As such, no oral evidence was led by either side before the labour court. Thereafter, written arguments of the respondent workman Exh.37 and written arguments of the petitioner Corporation produced at Exh.38 and thereafter, the Labour Court has examined the merits of the matter. The tribunal in terms come to the conclusion that considering the situation from 1st August, 1973, salary of Shri G.H.Vora was Rs.595/-, whereas the other junior viz. Niti Margiya was receiving salary of Rs.615/-. Considering the evidence, the tribunal has come to the conclusion that though said Niti Margiya was junior to the workman involved in the Reference, was getting higher salary in comparison to the senior employee working in the same category and therefore, the tribunal considering settlement as well as the relevant service regulation 65[e], granted benefits in favour of the respondent workman with effect from 1st August, 1973.
Learned advocate Ms.Amin has raised contention as to delay and also raised contention for granting relief from 1st August, 1973. However, it is noticed that the petitioner Corporation has not challenged the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour refereeing the matter for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal. One more aspect which requires to be observed that as such, there is no limitation prescribed under the Industrial Disputes Act for raising the industrial dispute and even in case of the delay also, the dispute exists but this delay aspect can be considered at the time while granting the relief. This issue has been considered by the Apex Court in reported decision in case of MAHAVIRSINGH VS. U.P. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD reported in 1999[2] CLR pg.7. In said case before the Apex Court, the dispute was raised after period of nine years, wherein, the Apex Court has observed that inspite of the delay in raising in the dispute, the dispute does not cease but this aspect of delay can be taken care by the Tribunal and / or Labour Court while granting the relief. Therefore, contention raised by learned advocate Ms.Amin on behalf of the petitioner cannot be accepted. So far the relief part is concerned, the tribunal has rightly considered this aspect and the fact that the injustice caused to the respondent workman with effect from 1st August, 1973 and therefore, his salary is required to be regularised, otherwise, question of arrears will have adverse effect on his retirement benefits. Therefore, once the dispute is found to be genuine and the demand raised by the respondent workman is considered to be proper and reasonable, in that case, the tribunal is entitled to pass appropriate orders granting relief to the respondent workman from the date of when the injustice is started causing to the respondent workman. Therefore, the tribunal has rightly granted such benefits even with retrospective effect. Therefore, the tribunal has not committed any error while passing such award and as such, there is no jurisdictional error, nor any procedural irregularity has been committed by the tribunal while passing award in this petition and hence, no interference is required by this Court while exercising the powers under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution. Therefore, there is no substance in the petition, same requires to be rejected and same is rejected accordingly. No order as to costs.
Date : 2-4-2002[H.K.Rathod, J.] #kailash#