K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.
1. The question that has come up for consideration in this case is whether Labour Court, Ernakulam has got jurisdiction to pass interim orders while adjudicating a dispute referred by the Government under Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 10 the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
2. Government of India referred the following dispute to the Labour Court, Ernakulam for adjudication.
Whether the industrial dispute raised by Bharath Petroleum Corporation General Workers Union against the management of Bharath Petroleum Corporation Limited over regularisation of contract workmen, justified? If so, to what relief the concerned workmen are entitled
Union preferred a petition before Labour Court, Ernakulam under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking a direction to the Management to employ them provisionally in the establishments at Irumbanam or at Nettoor where they were working as contract workers. Labour Court passed an order on 9.2.2005 directing the Management to give the workmen work provisionally at Irumbanam or at Nettoor on the same terms and conditions on which they were working as contract labourers till the contract labour is abolished or award is passed in the dispute. Aggrieved by the said order Management has-approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Learned single Judge found no infirmity in the direction given by the Labour Court and dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved by the same this appeal has been preferred.
3. Sri Antony Dominic, counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that Labour Court has committed an error in granting the interim relief. Counsel submitted Labour Court could at best pass an interim award in an industrial dispute which is to be published as required under Section 17. Counsel submitted no power has been conferred on the Labour Court to pass any other interim order. In support of his contention counsel placed reliance on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Dhanalakshmi Bank Limited v. Parameswara Menon ILR (1980) (1) Kerala 565. Reference was also made to the decisions of the Apex Court in The Management Hotel imperial, New Delhi v. Hotel Workers Union : (1959)IILLJ544SC . Delhi Cloth and General Mills v. Addl. Industrial Tribunal 1960 (2) LLJ 712. Counsel submitted that the Labour Court is not justified in passing interim order which is only, incidental and ancillary to the main relief without passing any interim award. Counsel submitted that the workmen in this case are not the workmen of the management and that they are contract workers and the respondents have never appointed them. Counsel appearing for the Union relied on the decision in Syntex Ltd v. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal Jaipur 1990 (1) LLJ 323 and supported the order of the Labour Court.
4. The apex court in the Management Hotel Imperial New Delhi v. Hotel Workers Union : (1959)IILLJ544SC had occasion to examine the question whether an order granting interim relief is an award within the meaning of Section 2(b) and is to be published under Section 17. Contention was raised before the apex court that Industrial Tribunal was incompetent to grant interim relief without making an interim award. The question was answered by the apex court stating as follows:
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 proceedings. 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 Section 17. Such awards are however not in the nature of interim 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 Section 10(4) with respect to matters incidental to the points of dispute for adjudication.
Further question raised before the apex court was that even if the Tribunal has got power under Section 10(4) of the Act, to grant interim relief of the nature granted in that case, it can only be done by submitting an award under Section 15 of the Act. In that case apex court held that it was unnecessary to decide whether an order granting interim relief of the kind was an award within the meaning of Section 2(b) and must therefore be published under Section 17.
In Delhi Cloth and General Mills' case, the apex court held as follows:
We are of opinion that it is not necessary in the present case to decide the first point because we have corne to the conclusion that the interim order of 16 May 1957, is manifestly erroneous in law and cannot be supported. Apart from the question whether the tribunal had jurisdiction to pass an interim order like this without making an interim award (a point which was considered and left open by this Court in Hotel Imperial, New Delhi and Ors. v. Hotel Workers' Union 1953 II LLJ 544 we are of opinion that where the tribunal is dealing with an application under Section 33A of the Act and the question before it is whether an order of dismissal is against the provisions of Section 33 it would be wrong in law for the tribunal to grant reinstatement or full wages in case the employer did not take the workman back in its service as an interim measure.
The Apex Court in Delhi Cloth and General Mills' case has taken a different stand from that in the Hotel Imperial's case. Going by the principle laid down by the apex court we are of the view tribunal has got power to grant interim relief apart from passing interim award. We are fortified by the Division Bench decision of the Patna High Court in Management of the Bihar State Electricity Board v. Workman of the Bihar State Electricity Board (1971) 1 LLJ 389 wherein the court held that the Tribunal has the power to grant interim relief in appropriate cases in the form of an interim award. In Manager, Jaipur Syntex Limited v. P.O. Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur (1990) 1 LLJ 323) the Rajasthan High Court has taken the view that the Tribunal has incidental power to award interim relief. We may point out the Kerala Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Rules, 2002 has added Rule 26A, which says that every report of a Board or award of a Labour Court or Tribunal required to be submitted to the Government under Section 15 shall be sent to the Government. The report/award so sent shall within thirty days from the date of its receipt by the Government, be published in the notice Board and the same shall be deemed to be sufficient publication for the purpose of Section 17. Therefore whether the order is in the nature of an interim relief or award makes no difference now since publication of the interim award as such in the gazette is not necessary. That being the legal position, we find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Labour Court. The appeal is therefore dismissed.