Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Tejram Dongre, was a former employee of Doordarshan whose service was terminated. He challenged the termination before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in O.A. No. 1134/1992 and subsequently before the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 1558/1999, where the termination was upheld as valid. Thereafter, the petitioner raised a grievance under Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, alleging that the employer failed to provide him work despite being a retrenched employee. This dispute was referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT) as Reference No. CGIT/NGP/25/2003. The CGIT, by its award dated 23rd June 2009, held that the reference was barred by the earlier orders of the CAT and the High Court, effectively dismissing the claim. The petitioner challenged this award before the Bombay High Court. The High Court observed that even if the termination was valid, the employer's obligation under Section 25-H to provide work to a retrenched employee subsists. The question of whether that obligation was breached is a distinct issue that could be adjudicated by the CGIT. The earlier adjudication did not cover this aspect, and therefore, the CGIT erred in dismissing the reference as barred. The High Court quashed the award and restored the proceedings to the CGIT for fresh adjudication on merits.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Section 25-H of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Obligation to Provide Work - Even if termination of service is held to be valid, the employer's obligation to provide work under Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, subsists. The question of whether that obligation has been breached is a separate dispute that can be referred to the CGIT. The earlier adjudication by CAT and High Court regarding the validity of termination does not bar a reference under Section 25-H. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT) erred in holding that a reference under Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is barred by the earlier orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and the High Court which had upheld the validity of the termination of the petitioner's service.
Final Decision
The High Court quashed and set aside the award dated 23rd June 2009 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT) in Reference No. CGIT/NGP/25/2003 and restored the proceedings to the file of CGIT for fresh adjudication on merits.
Law Points
- Section 25-H of Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
- obligation to provide work subsists despite valid termination
- reference not barred by res judicata or earlier adjudication
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (01) 389
Writ Petition No. 4910/2009
Ms. Kalayani Marpakwar for Petitioner, Shri S.K. Mishra, Assistant Solicitor General for Respondents
Tejram S/o. Daulatrao Dongre
The Director General, Doordarshan Kendra, New Delhi & The Station Director, Doordarshan Kendra, Nagpur
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT) which held that a reference under Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act was barred by earlier orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and the High Court.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the CGIT award dated 23rd June 2009 and restoration of the reference for fresh adjudication.
Filing Reason
The CGIT erroneously held that the reference under Section 25-H was barred by the earlier orders of CAT and High Court which had upheld the validity of the petitioner's termination.
Previous Decisions
The petitioner's termination was challenged before CAT in O.A. No. 1134/1992 and before the High Court in Writ Petition No. 1558/1999, where the termination was upheld as valid.
Issues
Whether the CGIT erred in holding that the reference under Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act is barred by the earlier orders of CAT and High Court.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner's counsel argued that the challenge before CAT and High Court was to termination of service, while the grievance under Section 25-H was for not providing work, which is a separate issue. The CGIT erroneously held the reference to be barred.
Respondent's counsel contended that the issue is covered by earlier adjudication as termination was found valid, and hence there is no question of providing work.
Ratio Decidendi
Even if termination of service is held to be valid, the employer's obligation to provide work under Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, subsists. The question of whether that obligation has been breached is a separate dispute that can be referred to the CGIT. The earlier adjudication by CAT and High Court regarding the validity of termination does not bar a reference under Section 25-H.
Judgment Excerpts
It is apparent that even if termination is held to be valid, the obligation of employer to provide work under Section 25-H of Industrial Disputes Act subsist and whether that obligation has been breached or not was the subject matter of dispute before C.G.I.T. Thus, merely because of earlier adjudication by C.A.T and High Court, the reference could not have been answered in negative.
Procedural History
The petitioner's service was terminated. He challenged the termination before CAT in O.A. No. 1134/1992 and then before the High Court in Writ Petition No. 1558/1999, where the termination was upheld. Thereafter, he raised a grievance under Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act for not providing work, which was referred to CGIT as Reference No. CGIT/NGP/25/2003. The CGIT, by award dated 23rd June 2009, held the reference barred by earlier orders. The petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging that award.
Acts & Sections
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: 25-H
