IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 13.01.2009 CWP No. 4435 of 1988 (O&M) Life Insurance Corporation of India, Jalandhar ...... PETITIONER VERSUS Harbans Lal Sharma and others .....RESPONDENTS CWP No. 2559 of 1988 Life Insurance Corporation of India, Jalandhar ...... PETITIONER VERSUS Mehar Chand and others .....RESPONDENTS CWP No. 2560 of 1988 Life Insurance Corporation of India, Jalandhar ...... PETITIONER VERSUS Narinder Pal Singh and others .....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr. B.R.Mahajan, Advocate, and Mr. P.K.Longia, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for the respondents. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) By this order, I propose to decide CWP No. 4435 of 1988 titled as Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Harbans Lal Sharma and others, CWP No. 2559 of 1988 titled as Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. CWP No. 4435 of 1988 (O&M) -2- Mehar Chand and others and CWP No. 2560 of 1988 titled as Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Narinder Pal Singh and others. In all these writ petitions, vide order dated 12.01.1988, the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chandigarh, dismissed the applications moved by the petitioner under Section 10 (6) (a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act'). It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the services of the respondent-workman were terminated on 06.09.1983, who were casual employees working on 85 days basis. On a demand being raised by the workman, a reference dated 03.01.1986 was made by the Central Government. The basic claim of the workman was that he has not been granted the benefit of the award dated 17.04.1986 passed by the National Industrial Tribunal, Bombay, which was published on 07.06.1986. It was the contention of the petitioner before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chandigarh, in its application under Section 10 (6) (a) of the Act that the second reference with regard to the interpretation of the award dated 17.04.1986, benefit whereof has been claimed by the petitioner, has been made by the Central Government to the National Industrial Tribunal, Bombay on 01.06.1987 under Section 36-A of the Act. Since the award, on which the claim of the respondent-workman was based itself stood referred to for interpretation under Section 36-A of the Act, the claim of the workman could not be granted and further, the reference in question before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Chandigarh could not be proceeded with as the Central Government has referred the matter for adjudication to the National Tribunal. The said application having been dismissed on 12.01.1988, the CWP No. 4435 of 1988 (O&M) -3- present writ petitions have been filed challenging the said order. It has been submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that in the light of Section 10 (6) (a) of the Act, all pending references before the Labour Court or the Tribunal, as the case may be in so far as it relates to such matters which have been referred to the National Industrial Tribunal by the Central Government under Section 10 (1A) of the Act, shall be deemed to have been quashed on such reference to the National Tribunal. He, on the basis of the reference dated 01.06.1987, submits that the reference in the present case is dated 03.01.1986, which relates to same dispute, which has been referred by the Central Government to the National Tribunal vide its reference dated 01.06.1987 and, therefore, in the light of the provisions referred to above, cannot be proceeded with as the same are deemed to have been quashed. He further submits that as the provisions of the Act are clear and unambiguous, the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chandigarh, had no option but to allow the application moved by the petitioner for disposal of the reference in view of the deeming provisions, as provided under Sub Section (6) (a) of Section 10 of the Act. He further submits that on the reference dated 01.06.1987, an award dated 26.08.1988 was passed by the National Industrial Tribunal, Bombay, against which Special Leave Petition No. 14906 of 1988 was preferred by the Life Insurance Corporation of India (petitioner herein). During the pendency of the Special Leave Petition, a compromise was entered into between the petitioner and the eight out of nine unions and on the basis of the compromise entered into between the parties, an order dated 01.03.1989 was passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, where the scheme framed by the Life Insurance Corporation of India with regard to its workmen and regularization of their services, was CWP No. 4435 of 1988 (O&M) -4- approved therein. Mr. Mahajan further contends that since one union did not accept the compromise, therefore, the said Special Leave Petition was kept pending. Later Leave was granted and the Hon'ble Supreme Court disposed of this appeal i.e. Civil Appeal No. 1790 of 1989 vide order dated 07.02.1996, in which the last union i.e. the 9th union also agreed to the said compromise. In the light of the scheme having been framed, which has been approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, counsel for the petitioner states that the claim of the workman would be considered in case an application to that effect is made by the respondent-workman. None has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent- workman. It has come on record that initially the respondent-workman had been served and counsel on his behalf had put in appearance. But none has put in appearance today when the case is being taken up for final disposal. I have gone through the records of the case and am of the considered opinion that order dated 12.01.1988 passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chandigarh, cannot be sustained in view of Section 10 (6) (a) of the Act. Section 10 (1-A) of the Act gives the powers to the Central Government, if in its opinion any dispute exists or is apprehended and the dispute involves any question of national importance to be adjudicated by the National Tribunals, which has the effect on Industrial establishments situated in more than one State. Section 10 (6) (a) of the Act provides that all references, pending adjudication before the Labour Court or Tribunal when a reference is made to the National Tribunal, in relation to a matter referred to the National Tribunal shall be deemed to have been quashed on such reference to the National Tribunal. In the light of this and in the light of the CWP No. 4435 of 1988 (O&M) -5- fact that reference dated 01.06.1987 was made, award whereof was given by the National Industrial Tribunal on 26.08.1988 and a compromise between the Life Corporation of India (petitioner herein) and the unions of the employees has been entered into resulting in the final disposal of the matter by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1790 of 1989 on 07.02.1996, where the said compromise has been approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and further in the light of the statement made by the counsel for the petitioner that the claim of the respondent-workman will be considered in case such a request under the said scheme is made, these petitions are allowed. Impugned order dated 12.01.1988 passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chandigarh, is hereby quashed. The application moved by the petitioner- Life Corporation of India for dismissal of the reference under Section 10 (6) (a) of the Act, is allowed. A direction is issued to the petitioner to consider the claim of the respondent-workman in the light of the statement given by the counsel for the petitioner, in case a representation to that effect is made by the workman within a period of three months from the date of receipt of such representation. These petitions stand disposed of with the above direction. ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE January 13, 2009 pj Whether referred to Reporters......................Yes/No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 2560 of 1988 Date of decision: 13.01.2009 Life Insurance Corporation of India, Jalandhar ...... PETITIONER VERSUS Narinder Pal Singh and others .....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr. B.R.Mahajan, Advocate, and Mr. P.K.Longia, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for the respondents. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) For detailed orders, see CWP No. 4435 of 1988 (O&M) tilted as Life Insurance Corporation of India, Jalandhar vs. Harbans Lal sharma and others. ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE January 13, 2009 pj