Case: Hiru B. Barot Vs. Ipca Laboratories Limited &amp; Another

not arise at all.15. The opinion recorded by us hitherto is reinforced by the exposition in the case of The Management of the Bihar State Electricity Board (supra) rendered by the Division Bench of the Patna High Court. It observed thus:We have been called upon to decide this point in this case because the submission on behalf of the petitioner is that if the order granting the interim relief has to take the form of an interim award, the Tribunal must give cogent reasons for granting such a relief by discussing some facts and showing that prima facie the workman has a strong case against the dismissal or termination of his service. Without such a finding a temporary or provisional arrangement of giving some wages to the workman cannot be adopted during the pendency of the reference case.In either case is has got to take the form of an interim award and in that event the Tribunal must determine that there is a good prima facie case in favour of the workman for final adjudication and, therefore, on the facts of a particular case, granting of interim relief by the interim award is necessary. In absence of such an adjudication of the kind just indicated by me, the Tribunal is not competent to grant interim relief to the discharged workman.(emphasis supplied)16. Determination involves the process where the opinion or the view of the authority should be expressed. However, while determining any issue judicially, it is necessary for the Presiding Officer to frame a correct issue or point of determination and thereafter to discuss and give reasoning for its conclusion. The entire process can be called as a determination of the issue judicially. In Advanced Law Lexicon, the word adjudication is defined as it is a process of directing and determining case judicially. The application of the law to the facts and an authoritative declaration of the result. Adjudication means judicial determination of a claim after taking into consideration the material on record and after hearing the parties. Granting of interim relief is different than interim award. All interim awards would necessarily be an interim relief, but not vice versa. Interim order, to grant incidental relief, can be passed. Adjudication is a mental process and it should reflect in the order passed by the Presiding officer wherein he is required to discuss acceptance or rejection of the evidence and also he is required to opine whether prima facie case is made out to grant the interim relief. Thus, determination of the issue stands on a higher pedestal than passing the order of interim relief. Interim relief is granted in various circumstances e.g if prima facie case is made out or to give breathing time to the party or to save the further damage etc.. But for passing interim award, the Tribunal has to consider the prima facie case of the industrial dispute and also has to weigh the findings in the inquiry and while doing so, application of mind should reflect from the order itself.17. The incidental issue that was canvassed on behalf of Management was that assuming that the impugned decision of the Labour Court was an interim award, however, in absence of publication thereof in the Official Gazette as required as per Section 17-A of the Act, in law, the same cannot be executed. For that reason, relief under Section 17-B of the Act on the basis of such award is unavailable. The counsel appearing for the workman on the other hand argued that whether the award is executable or otherwise, so long as the decision qualifies the definition of an Award and implementation of such decision has been stayed by the High Court, Section 17-B of the Act comes into play. According to the learned Counsel for the workman, Section 17-B of the Act will have to be liberally construed being social welfare Legislation. It is not necessary for us to examine this controversy in the fact situation of the present case.18. The learned Single Judge has held that there is no provision in the Act empowering the Tribunal to make an order granting relief to a discharged workman except by way of making interim award which can be passed under section 10(4) of the Act and so the decision of the Tribunal to grant reinstatement as a temporary measure is an award. On this point in Hotel Imperial, New Delhi the Hon. Supreme Court has held that interim relief where it is admitted can be granted as a matter incidental to the main question referred to the Tribunal without being itself referred in express terms. As the words incidental thereto appear in section 10(4) of the Act.19. We would now turn to the case (The Management of the Bihar State Electricity Board (supra). In the said case, Reference was made to the Tribunal about the termination of workmans service and what relief he was entitled to. The Tribunal granted interim relief of 1/3 of the wages to respondent no.2 till the disposal of the case and the said order was challenged. In the case in hand, however, the dispute raised and referred to the Tribunal was about the legality of the dismissal and the same issue was decided by reinstating the workman without giving reasoned order.20. With due respect, the learned Single Judge, in our considered opinion, has glossed over the crucial test to be borne in mind to discern as to whether the decision takes the colour of an interim award or is only an interim relief. For the reasons already mentioned by us, we have no hesitation in taking the view that the impugned decision of the Labour Court, though passed in exercise of Section 10(4) of the Act, is in the nature of interim relief and by no stretch of imagination, it can be treated as an interim award as is contended on behalf of the workman. As a result, the application preferred by the workman under Section 17-B of the Act was unavailable.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]We are in agreement with the submission canvassed on behalf of the management that for treating a decision of the Labour Court as an interim award, the decision should reflect that relevant point for determination to be answered in part or wholly has been formulated and addressed in the decision so as to determine the said controversy one way or the other. Only then, the Labour Court gets jurisdiction to pass an interim award. That is a jurisdictional fact.13. In the present case, the dispute referred to the Labour Court was whether the action of the Management in terminating the services of the workman was legal and justified. In the context of the said issue, specific points for determination ought to have been formulated by the Labour Court, which is lacking in the present case. Besides, we find that the relevant facts to invest jurisdiction in the Labour Court to pass an interim award have not been discussed and deliberated upon in the impugned decision. We say so because after opining that the Labour Court was competent to pass interim relief (read award), in paragraph 13, it proceeded to record that in the present case, the relation between the employer and the workman is admitted. Further, the termination of the services is also admitted. Then in Paragraph No.14 of the impugned decision arguments canvassed by the Counsel for the parties has been referred to.On plain reading of the above said discussion in the impugned decision, it appears that reference is made to the fact that there has been long standing practice which was followed by the workman. On that premiss, it is concluded that if such practice is followed by the workman, it does not amount to breach of duties. The next point referred to is that new rules or norms have been framed in the form of BMR. Then opinion is recorded that the rule of BMR is in dispute as according to the workman, it has not come into force. Then the Labour Court Judge has jumped to the conclusion that the termination of workman was therefore not on a serious point. The Court then noted that there were large number of pending cases before it for many years. As a result, the Court thought it appropriate to pass just and equitable order of reinstatement in favour of the workman. It has then noted that the relief granted by it cannot be equated with a final award. In our opinion, however, the Labour Court ought to have discussed how the findings of the Inquiry Officer were perverse, incorrect or unfair. Further, except one sentence that the workman is terminated not on a serious point, thee is no other consideration as to why the punishment imposed by the Management is unjust, much less, excessive. Suffice it to observe that the impugned decision to take the colour of an interim award ought to have determined the material points. That is lacking in the discussion in paragraph 15 of the impugned Judgment. On this finding, it necessarily follows that the decision by no stretch of imagination can be considered as an interim award as such. It, at best, can be viewed only in the nature of interim relief granted by the Labour Court. Thus understood, the question of granting relief to the workman under Sectionof the Act would not arise at all.The learned Single Judge has held that there is no provision in the Act empowering the Tribunal to make an order granting relief to a discharged workman except by way of making interim award which can be passed under section 10(4) of the Act and so the decision of the Tribunal to grant reinstatement as a temporary measure is an award. On this point in Hotel Imperial, New Delhi the Hon. Supreme Court has held that interim relief where it is admitted can be granted as a matter incidental to the main question referred to the Tribunal without being itself referred in express terms. As the words incidental thereto appear in section 10(4) of the Act.19. We would now turn to the case (The Management of the Bihar State Electricity Board (supra). In the said case, Reference was made to the Tribunal about the termination of workmans service and what relief he was entitled to. The Tribunal granted interim relief of 1/3 of the wages to respondent no.2 till the disposal of the case and the said order was challenged. In the case in hand, however, the dispute raised and referred to the Tribunal was about the legality of the dismissal and the same issue was decided by reinstating the workman without giving reasoned order.20. With due respect, the learned Single Judge, in our considered opinion, has glossed over the crucial test to be borne in mind to discern as to whether the decision takes the colour of an interim award or is only an interim relief. For the reasons already mentioned by us, we have no hesitation in taking the view that the impugned decision of the Labour Court, though passed in exercise of Section 10(4) of the Act, is in the nature of interim relief and by no stretch of imagination, it can be treated as an interim award as is contended on behalf of the workman. As a result, the application preferred by the workman under Sectionof the Act was unavailable.