Central Bank Of India vs Shri O.P. Singla And Ors.
2003 Latest Caselaw 797 Del

JUDGMENT

Mukul Mudgal, J.

1. This writ petition challenges the Award 18th June, 1984, given by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, respondent No.1 herein in I.D. No.110 of 1977. The reference was on the following terms:-

"Whether the action of the Management of Central Bank of India, Chandigarh in withdrawing the facility of duty special leave to Shri A.L. Chopra, Special Assistant, Central Bank of India, Ambala Cantonment for attending proceedings before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central)/Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals with effect from the 28th August, 1973 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief is Shri A.L. Chopra is entitled?"

2. The respondent No.2, Union claimed that since the workman, Shri A.L. Chopra was the General Secretary of the Central Bank of India Employees' Union and had been attending conciliation proceedings before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) and, therefore, special leave for the aforesaid purpose should be granted to him as it was wrongly stopped with effect from 11th November, 1971. The allegations of the respondent No.2 was that the stoppage was under the pressure of the rival recognized union.

3. The preliminary plea of the petitioner was that the reference sought by the respondent No.2/workman was declined by the Secretary, Ministry of Labour, Union of India on 22nd August, 1974 and thereafter the same dispute raised by respondent No.2 was referred without notice to the petitioner on 16th July, 1975. This second reference and the impugned Award dated 18th June, 1984 were termed as invalid.

4. In so far as the preliminary plea raised by the petitioner is concerned, the Tribunal noticed the following position of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Avon Service Vs Industrial Tribunal 1979 (1) LLJ 1:-

"merely because the Government reject a request for a reference or declines to make a reference, it cannot be said that the Industrial Dispute has ceased to exist, nor could it be said that to be a review of any judicial or quasi judicial order or determination. The industrial dispute may nonetheless continue to remain in existence and if at a subsequent stage the appropriate Government is satisfied that in the interest of industrial peace and for promoting industrial harmony it is desirable to make a reference the appropriate Government does not lack the power to do so under S. 10(1) nor is it precluded from making the reference on the only ground that on an earlier occasion it had declined to make a reference."

The tribunal accordingly came to the following finding in para 26 of the impugned Award dated 18th June, 1984:-

"Accordingly the reference made by the Central Government without notice to the Management of Central Bank of India is not without jurisdiction and has to be entertained. The spousal of the case by the union (Regd) is held to be in order."

5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above judgment laid down clearly that a mere rejection of a reference does not denude the appropriate government of the power to make a reference later on under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 merely on the ground that the reference was not made on the earlier occasion. However, from the above position of law it does not straightway follow that the reference afresh could be made without notice to the affected party.

6. It is settled law in view of the position of law laid down by a learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court in American Express International Banking Corporation Vs Union of India & Others reported as 1979 LLJ II 22 (Cal) and a Full Bench of the Madras High Court in G. Muthukrishnan Vs Administrative Manager, New Horizon Sugar Mills (Pvt.) Ltd., Pondicherry and Others 1980 LLJ I 215 (Mad) that if the reference is rejected and thereafter at the behest of one of the parties, a fresh reference is made, the party which is affected ought to be given notice of the fresh reference being made. The para 26 of the award in fact noticed that the reference was made without notice to the petitioner management of Central Bank of India. I am in respectful agreement with the point of view expressed by the Calcutta and Madras High Courts.

7. Accordingly, the Order of Reference dated 16th January, 1976 made admittedly without notice to the petitioner, is contrary to the position of law laid down in the above two judgments in American Express and G. Muthukrishnan (supra) and, therefore, the impugned Award dated 18th June, 1984 is set aside as the reference itself was without jurisdiction. However, there is no bar to the reference of the dispute afresh by the Central Government after notice to the petitioner for being decided by the appropriate Court, if thought fit in accordance with the position of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Avon Service's case (surpa).

8. The writ petition stands allowed accordingly and disposed of as such with no order as to costs.