Case: Management Hotel Imperial, New Delhi Vs. Hotel Workers' Union

being itself referred in express terms.23. The, next question is as to, how the tribunal should proceed in the matter if it decides to grant interim relief. The definition of the word "award" shows that it can be either an interim or final determination either of the whole of the dispute referred to the tribunal or of any question relating thereto. Thus it is open to the tribunal to give an award about the entire dispute at the end of all proceeding. This will be final determination of the industrial dispute referred to it. It is also open to the tribunal to make an award about some of the matters referred to it whilst some others still remain to be decided. This will be an interim determination of any question relating thereto, In either case it will have to be published as required by S. 17.Such awards are however not in the nature of intent relief for they decide the industrial dispute or some question relating thereto. Interim relief, on the other hand is granted under the power conferred on the tribunal under S. 10 (4) with respect to matters incidental to the points of dispute for adjudication.24. It is however urged on behalf of the appellants that even if the tribunal has power under S. 10 (4) of the Act to grant interim relief of the nature granted in these cases it can only do so by submitting an award under S. 15 to the appropriate government. Reference in this connection is made to sections 15, 17 and 17-A of the Act.It is submitted that as soon as the tribunal makes a determination whether interim or final, it must submit that determination to government which has to publish it as an award under S. 17 and thereafter the provisions of S. 17- A will apply. In reply the respondents rely on a decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal in Allen Berry and Co. Ltd. v. Their Workmen, 1951-1 Lab LJ 228 (LAT-Cal), where it was held that an interim award had not to be sent like a final award to the government for publication and that it would take effect from the date of the order.We do not think it necessary to decide for present purposes whether an order granting interim relief of this kind is an award within the meaning of S. 2(b) and must therefore be published under S. 17. We shall assume that the interim order passed by the Tribunal on December 5,1955, could not be enforced as it was in the nature of an award and should have been submitted to the government and published under S. 17 to become enforceable under S. 17-A.It is, however, still open to us to consider whether we should pass an order giving interim relief in view of this alleged technical defect in the order of the Industrial Tribunal. We have the power to grant interim relief in the same manner as the Industrial Tribunal could do and our order need not be sent to government for publication,for Ss. 15, 17 and 17-A do not apply to the order of this Court just as they did not apply to the decision of the Appellate Tribunal which was governed by the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950 (No. XLVIII of 1950), (since repealed).We have already mentioned that this Court passed an order on June 5, 1956, laying down conditions on which it stayed the operation of the order of December 5, 1955, made by the Industrial Tribunal. We are of opinion that that order is the right order to pass in the matter of granting interim relief to the workmen in these cases. Ordinarily, interim relief should not be the whole relief that the workmen would get if they succeeded finally. In fairness to the Industrial Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal we must say that they granted the entire wages plus Rs. 25 per mensem per head in lieu of food on the view that no suspension was possible at all in those cases and therefore the contract of service continued and full wages must be paid. Their orders might have been different if they had held otherwise. It seems to us just and fair in the circumstances therefore to under that the appellants shall pay to their respective workmen concerned half the amount adjudged payable by the order dated December 5, 1955, with respect to the entire period, as the case may be, from October 1, 1955 to December 10, 1955. or July 15, 1956, by which date, as we have already pointed out, practically all the workmen were taken back in service. We, therefore, order accordingly.25. Lastly, it is urged on behalf of the respondents that as all the workmen concerned were taken back in service they should be paid full wages for the interim period as their re-employment means that the decision to dismiss them and the consequent order of suspension were waved. This is a matter on which we do not propose to express any opinion. The proceedings are so far at the initial stage and the effect of re-employment, in the absence of full facts, on the question of waiver cannot be determined at this stage. It is enough to point out that the order we have passed above is an interim relief and it will be liable to be modified one way or the other, when the Industrial Tribunal proceeds to make the final determination of the questions referred to it in the light of the observations we have made on the matter of suspension. The appeals are partly allowed and the order dated December 5, 1955, granting interim relief is modified in the manner indicated above. In the circumstances, we order the parties to bear their own costs of this Court. As more than three years have gone by in these preliminaries since the references were made, we trust that the Industrial Tribunal will now dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible.26.

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

Explanation:
1[ds]17. We shall assume that the interim order passed by the Tribunal on December 5,1955, could not be enforced as it was in the nature of an award and should have been submitted to the government and published under S. 17 to become enforceable under S. 17-A.It is, however, still open to us to consider whether we should pass an order giving interim relief in view of this alleged technical defect in the order of the Industrial Tribunal. We have the power to grant interim relief in the same manner as the Industrial Tribunal could do and our order need not be sent to government for publication,for Ss. 15, 17 and 17-A do not apply to the order of this Court just as they did not apply to the decision of the Appellate Tribunal which was governed by the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950 (No. XLVIII of 1950), (since repealed).We have already mentioned that this Court passed an order on June 5, 1956, laying down conditions on which it stayed the operation of the order of December 5, 1955, made by the Industrial Tribunal. We are of opinion that that order is the right order to pass in the matter of granting interim relief to the workmen in these cases. Ordinarily, interim relief should not be the whole relief that the workmen would get if they succeeded finally. In fairness to the Industrial Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal we must say that they granted the entire wages plus Rs. 25 per mensem per head in lieu of food on the view that no suspension was possible at all in those cases and therefore the contract of service continued and full wages must be paid. Their orders might have been different if they had held otherwise. It seems to us just and fair in the circumstances therefore to under that the appellants shall pay to their respective workmen concerned half the amount adjudged payable by the order dated December 5, 1955, with respect to the entire period, as the case may be, from October 1, 1955 to December 10, 1955. or July 15, 1956, by which date, as we have already pointed out, practically all the workmen were taken back in service. We, therefore, order accordingly.