National Industrial Development ... vs Industrial Tribunal No.1 & Anr.
2010 Latest Caselaw 2192 Del

                 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                                      W.P.(C) 3909/1996

%                                                  Date of decision:26th April, 2010

NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LTD.                          ..... PETITIONER
                  Through: Mr. Arun Kumar Varma & Ms.
                           Mansi Wadhera, Advocates.

                                        Versus

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1 & ANR.                             ..... RESPONDENTS
                  Through:  None.

CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1.      Whether reporters of Local papers may
        be allowed to see the judgment?                     no

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?              no

3.      Whether the judgment should be reported             no
        in the Digest?

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. This writ petition impugns the award dated 10th July, 1996 of the

Industrial Tribunal on the following reference:-

"Whether the withdrawal of scheme for Grant of one/two advance increments to the employee by the management is illegal and/or unjustified and if so, to what directions are necessary in this respect?"

2. The Industrial Tribunal has in the order impugned in this petition held

withdrawal of the scheme by the petitioner to be not in accordance with the

provision of Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act and thus not in

accordance with law. Liberty was granted to the petitioner to take a fresh

decision in the matter in accordance with law.

3. The counsel for the respondent no.2 Employees' Union appeared and

also filed a reply. This Court subsequently vide order dated 12th February,

1998 stayed the proceedings of implementation of the award aforesaid. Rule

was issued in the writ petition on 24th April, 1998 and the interim order was

made absolute. However the respondent no.2 Union stopped appearing before

this Court w.e.f. 21st November, 2005. Subsequently on 10th January, 2006 the

counsel earlier appearing for the respondent no.2 Union sought discharge.

Notice of the said application was directed to be issued to Mr. Sidheshwar

Prasad, Secretary of the respondent no.2 Union. The said Mr. Sidheshwar

Prasad appeared before this Court on 4th April, 2006 and sought time to

engage another advocate. However neither any advocate appeared for the

respondent no.2 Union thereafter nor did the said Mr. Sidheshwar Prasad

appear. However the writ petition was dismissed for non prosecution on 25th

May, 2009 and thereafter applications for its restoration were filed by the

petitioner. Notice issued of the said applications for restoration to the

respondent no.2 Union remained unserved. However the counsel for the

petitioner on 12th March, 2010 brought the earlier orders to the notice of this

Court and said that he will serve the aforesaid Mr. Sidheshwar Prasad. Mr.

Sidheshwar Prasad again appeared before this Court on 19th April, 2010 and

stated that since the factory of the petitioner had closed down in 2002, no

union of employees' was in existence and he, who was earlier functioning as a

General Secretary of the Union, was also not now interested and sought

discharge. He was accordingly discharged and the petition restored to its

original position.

4. From the aforesaid, it is clear that the respondent no.2 Union which had

raised the dispute adjudicated by the Industrial Tribunal vide the award

impugned in this petition has now ceased to exist and its members are no

longer interested in contesting the present petition.

5. The counsel for the petitioner informs that the proceedings for winding

up of the petitioner company are pending before the Company Judge of this

Court and the order of winding up of the petitioner company has already been

passed on 13th January, 2005. He also informs that though certain persons who

claimed to have been engaged by the petitioner as contract workers have

preferred their claims before the Company Court but none of the members of

the respondent no.2 Union or the respondent no.2 Union has preferred any

claim before the Company Court. He further states that subsequent to the

aforesaid award the Government of India took a decision to wind up the

petitioner company and a Voluntary Severance Scheme was formulated and

which was availed of by all the regular employees of the petitioner company

who were members of the respondent no.2 Union.

6. From the aforesaid, it appears that the claims even, if any, of the

members of the respondent no.2 Union for benefits consequent to / under the

award would not survive after the said employees have received payment

under the Voluntary Severance Scheme.

7. The counsel for the petitioner has also fairly stated that in the absence

of the respondent no.2 Union or its employees, there is no purpose left in the

present petition but he has no instruction to withdraw the same.

8. This Court is of the opinion that the members of the respondent no.2

Union having, after the award, availed of and received payments under the

Voluntary Severance Scheme on the closure of the undertaking of the

petitioner, no useful purpose will be served in adjudicating the present

petition. However for the sake of finality the award dated 10th July, 1996 is set

aside/quashed in light of the subsequent events aforesaid and the writ petition

is disposed of.

No order as to costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) 26th April, 2010 pp