JUDGMENT M. Katju, J.
1. This is an application for review of my judgment dated January 11, 1993. It appears that against the aforesaid judgment the petitioner approached the Supreme Court and contended that the Division Bench Judgment of Allahabad High Court reported in 1977 LIC 993 was placed before the High Court but has not been referred to. Accordingly the Supreme Court directed the petitioner to file a review petition in this Court.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the award of the U.P. Industrial Tribunal dated October 10, 1985 ceased to be operative after one year in view of Section 6-C of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed before me the decision of this Court in U.P. Cinema Exhibitions Federation v. State of U.P. 1977-LIC-993 and has invited my attention to paras 30 to 32 of the aforesaid Division Bench decision and on that basis submitted that the award had ceased to be operative after one year. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further urged that there is no provision analogous to Section 19(6) of the Central Act in the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, and hence it has to be held that after one year the award is no longer binding on the parties. I am not in agreement with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the aforesaid Division Bench decision of this Court the question whether the principle of Section 19(6) of the Central Act will be applicable to references under the U.P. Act was not decided. As held by the Supreme Court in South India Bank v. A.R. Chacko (1964-I-LLJ-19) an award of Tribunal even after it ceased to be in operation after one year continues to have effect as a contract between the parties. In my opinion this principle applies even to references under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, since to hold otherwise would mean that after one year of the award either there is a legal vacuum or the parties again get relegated to their old position before the award was given. To hold : that the award become ineffective and not binding after one year would be taking a very impractical view. To give an illustration, suppose a worker was getting Rs. 500/- per month wage prior to the award but by the award of the Labour: Court the wages have been increased to Rs. 1000/- per month. If the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted it would mean that after one year of the award the worker will again start getting Rs. 500/- per month. Such ; a view would be very impractical and unrealistic. In fact, it would go against the very object of industrial law, viz. to have peace and harmony in industrial relations. Moreover, it would mean that a fresh round of litigation should begin after every year. Such a view cannot be accepted. In the present case the award has fixed the pay scale of the workers (vide Annexure-1 to the writ petition). The award was not challenged, but the contention is that the award is ineffective after one year. To accept this would mean that after years of litigation the workers should again be relegated to their old position. Any one can understand what reaction in industrial relations such a reduction in wages will have. Hence I am of the opinion that the principle of Section 19(6) of the Central Act as laid down in the Supreme Court's decision in South India Bank v. Chako, is applicable to references under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act also. Alternatively it has to be held that in view of Article 254 of the Constitution the provisions of Section 19(6) of Central Act will apply in U.P. also as there is no conflicting provision in the U.P. Act. In my opinion the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in U.P. Cinema Exhibitions federation (supra) is distinguishable as it did not go at all into the above considerations but was based on Section 3(2-A). In fact the Division Bench specifically observed (towards the end of para 32 of the judgment) that it was not going into the question whether the principle of Section 19(6) was applicable in U.P.
3. There is no force in this application. It is accordingly dismissed.