1 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4408 OF 2010 Sane Guruji Arogya Kendra ... Petitioners v/s Pune Labour Union ... Respondent Mr.K.k.Singhavi i/by Mr.S.R.Nargolkar for petitioners. Mr.A.D.Patwardhan with Mr.T.R.Yadav for the respondent. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 6TH JULY, 2010 P.C.: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent. 2. The petition has been filed against the order of the Industrial Tribunal, Pune, dated 22.1.2010 in Reference (IT) No. 7 of 2001. The Tribunal has decided the wage reference by directing the petitioners to pay the workmen at par with the wages recommended in the Fifth Pay Commission from 1.4.2000. Liberty was also granted to the petitioners to adjust the amounts already paid to the workmen under the settlements of 2002 and 2005 from the actual arrears 2 payable to the workmen as per the recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission. The petitioners have been directed to pay the workmen arrears in two instalments, the first of which was payable on 30.6.2010 and the balance on 30.10.2010. The Tribunal has further directed the petitioners to pay wages each month in accordance with the recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission within one month from the date of publication of the award and to continue to pay the same. Further, the petitioners have been directed to pay conveyance allowance to the employees. 2. After the petition was argued for some time, parties agreed that the impugned award be aside. This is because, there is no discussion in the award regarding the financial position of the petitioner nor is there any discussion regarding the burden, if any, which would be cast on the petitioners if the demands raised by the union are granted. There is also no detailed discussion as to whether the petitioners would be able to bear this burden, if the demands raised by the employees are granted. The Tribunal does not appear to have followed the principle of industry-cum-region while granting the demands. Thus the Tribunal while passing the award has not adhered to the well settled principles of industrial jurisprudence as enunciated by the Supreme Court in its various judgments regarding the wage adjudication. 3 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that despite two settlements the Tribunal has not considered the effect of these settlements on the demands raised by the respondent union while adjudicating the reference. It appears that no application has been made by the petitioners before the Tribunal to pass an award in terms of the two settlements nor is there anything on record to show what is the financial position of the petitioners from 2005 when the evidence was closed in 2009. In these circumstances, both parties have rightly consented to the award being set aside. 4. Hence, the impugned award is set aside. 5. Parties are at liberty to adduce additional evidence, both documentary and oral. 6. The Tribunal will pass an award, bearing in mind the various judgments of the Supreme Court which lay down the principles to be followed by the Industrial Tribunal while adjudicating a reference for revision in wages. 7. Parties shall cooperate with the Tribunal who will decide the reference by 31.12.2010. .....