Airports Authority of India v. Yashpal Singh Tanwar

1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The application is disposed of.

REVIEW PET. 530/2019

1. This petition seeks review of an order dated 10th October, 2019, passed by me in CM (M) 1297/2018, whereby the said petition was 2020:DHC:1691 allowed, and order, dated 5th September, 2018, passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal, in Ex. P. 5522/2016 was quashed and set aside.

2. For the purposes of deciding this Review Petition, a brief reference to facts would suffice.

3. Consequent to termination of the respondent/workman, an industrial dispute was raised, which was referred to the learned Industrial Tribunal, on 27th September, 1988. Vide award dated 26th September, 1997, the learned Industrial Tribunal declined the termination of the respondent/workman to be illegal and directed his reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service. Consequent thereupon, on 14th May, 1998, the respondent was reinstated in service.

4. The respondent, thereafter, moved WP(C) 3/2014, seeking monetary benefits as well as promotion with effect from 4th November, 1985, consequent to the aforementioned award, dated 26th September, 1997, of the learned Industrial Tribunal.

5. Vide order dated 9th February, 2015, the aforementioned WP (C) 3/2014 was disposed of, by a learned Single Judge of this court. The prayer, of the respondent, for promotional benefits, was left open to be agitated in a separate proceeding. Insofar as the claim for monetary benefits was concerned, the learned Single Judge held that the said claim would have to be ventilated by way of execution proceedings, under Section 11(9) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the “ID Act”), which made awards of industrial tribunals executable like decrees of civil courts.

6. Apparently spurred by the said observation, the respondent preferred Ex. P. 5522/2016, before the learned Industrial Tribunal. In the interregnum, the respondent also applied for correction of the aforementioned award dated 26th September, 1997. Vide order dated 19th November, 2015, the learned Industrial Tribunal corrected the award, to the extent of the pay scale specified therein, correcting the pay scale from ₹ 210 - 360 to ₹ 260 - 350/-, in para 10 of the award.

7. The petitioner, thereafter applied for correction of the aforementioned order dated 19th November, 2015, of the learned Industrial Tribunal. Vide order dated 22nd June, 2016, the learned Industrial Tribunal corrected the award only to the extent of clarifying that the change of pay scale, as directed vide order dated 19th November, 2015, would be effected in para 2, rather than para 10, of the award dated 26th September, 1997.

8. On 5th September, 2018, the learned ADJ, allowed Ex. P. 5522/2016, to the extent of directing payment of back wages to the respondent, for the period 1st June, 1981 to 30th September, 1988. An objection, regarding delay and latches in preferring the execution petition, as raised by the present petitioner before the learned Industrial Tribunal, was rejected, on the ground that the execution petition had been filed consequent to the directions contained in the order dated 9th February, 2015, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP (C) 3/2014.

9. The present CM (M) 1297/2018, of the judgment passed wherein review is now being sought, was directed against the aforementioned order, dated 5th September, 2018, of the learned ADJ in Ex. P. 5522/2016.

10. Vide my judgment under review, I have held that the learned ADJ erred in awarding monetary benefits from 1st June, 1981, as the award, dated 26th September, 1997 specifically limited back wages from 30th September, 1988 onwards. I have also found the plea, of the petitioner, regarding the execution petition having been filed belatedly, and beyond the 12 year limitation period available therefor, to have substance. The writ petition was, therefore, allowed on both these counts, and the order, dated 5th September, 2018, of the learned ADJ, was set aside.

11. Review is, now, being sought of the aforesaid judgment dated 10th October, 2019.

12. Ms. Archana Sharma, appearing for the review petitioner, i.e. the respondent/workman in the review petition, submits that her client was not required to file any execution petition at all, as the award of the learned ADJ was bound to be complied with by the respondent. She submits, therefore, that the plea of delay and laches, which has found favour with this court, was without substance. She also submits that jurisdiction of the learned ADJ, to adjudicate on the execution petition, would arise only after the provision for execution was introduced in Section 11(9) of the ID Act in 2010. She submits that, prior to the introduction of the said provision, it was not open to her client to file any execution petition at all.