UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus SCIENTIFIC WORKERS ASSOCIATION (REGD.) KANPUR AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] 3 S.C.R. 124 · Decided: 18-03-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
I'. 
SCIENTIFIC WORKERS ASSOCIATION (REGO.) 
KANPUR AND ORS. 
MARCH 18, 1994 
(KULDIP SINGH AND J.S. VERMA, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950 : 
Articles 14, 16(i) the Joint Consultative Machinery and Compu/s,ny 
Arbitration for Central Government Employees (!CM Scheme), 2 
21-Power of the Parliament to alter date of implementation of award a, ier 
the judgment of the TribZ<nal attained finality-Held, Tribunal's judgment 
could only mean that the Govemment of India was bound to implement the 
award subject to power to hat•e it modified in tenns of Clause 21 of the Jr ~M 
Scheme 
Articles 136, 141-I7ze Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, S. 28 "ad 
with I7ie Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, l'.ule 
17-When Appeal against main judgment of T1ibwwl dismissed in d<j 1ult 
E 
whether appeal against dismissal of Review Petition competent-Held, the 
issue in the present appeal not considered by the Tribunal earlier or sul1ject 
matter of the earlier Appeal which in any case was dismissed for non-
prosecution-Res judicata-Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, S. II. 
The ('entral Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Ru/es-:R.ule 
F 
17-After T1ibunal's judgment attained finality Parliament a/terning da:e of 
in1plen1enlation of a·rvard-Held, valid wound for review. 
Adniinistrative Law-Natural Justice-Whether Parlianient should hear 
the e111ployees before niodifying the date of i111ple111entation of award-,ield, 
G not a requirement of Clause 21 of the JCM Scheme fonnulated in consult-
ation lvith eniployees. 
The Board of Arbitration constituted under the Joint consultative 
Machinery for Central Government employees (JCM Scheme) ga.,e an 
award granting higher pay scale to Senior Scientific Assistants in the 
H 
Department of Defence Production, Government of India with effect from 
124 
! 
•
\ 
" 
' -. 
• 
U.0.1. ;·_SCIENTIFIC WORKERS ASSN. 
12:i 
Septl'ntbl'r 22, 1982. During the pendencY of an application by the Respon-
A 
. 
. 
dt'nt before the Central A.chninistrative Tribunal for a direction to the 
Governn1ent to in1ple1uent the invarcl, the Governrnent decided to in1plt~­
n1ent the onn1rd \\'ith etl'ect front January 1. 1988. The Trihunal held that 
the governnu:nt could n1odi(v the date of hnple1nentation of the a\\'ard only 
after Parlian1ent gives its approval to such n1ndilication as per the proce-
dure laid do\\11 in Clause 21 of the JCl\1 Schen1e. That not having been 
done, the a\\-·ard had to be imple1uented \l'ith efl'ect front September 22, 
1982. 
Thereafter the Parlian1ent adopted a resolution nutdifying the date 
B 
of implementation of the award from September 22, 1982 to January 1, C 
1988. The Government then filed a Revie\\1 Petition before the Tribunal 
which was dismissed on the ground that the resolution adopted by Parlia-
ment could not have the eft'ect of modifying the judgment of the Tribunal. 
After its appeal against the Tribunal's main judgment \\'as dismissed 
by this Court in default the Government filed the present appeal against D 
the .Tribunal's order dismissing its Review Petition. The Respondents 
raised a preliminary objection that in view of the earlier judgment of the 
Tribunal having attained finality, the present appeal where the same 
question was being agitated was not competent. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. In the present case the award given by the Board had 
not achieved finality in the sense that it was open to the Government of 
India to have invoked the procedure envisaged under Clause 21 of the JCM 
Scheme. The judgment of the Tribunal directing implementation of the 
award could only mean that the Government of India was bound to 
implement the award subject to its power to have it modified in terms of 
Clause 21 of the JCM Scheme. [132-D-E) 
1.2. It cannot be said that the Parliament had no power to modify 
E 
F 
the terms of the reference after the judgment of the Court. [133-8) 
G 
Madan Mohan Pathak, [1978) SCC (L & SJ 103; L.l.C. v. DJ. 
Bahadur, (1981) SCC (L & S) 111 and A. V Nachane v. Union of India, 
[1982) SCC (L & S) 53, distinguished. 
1.3. The two Houses of Parliament having passed the Resolutions the H 
! 
12(1 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
j1994J 3 S.C.R. 
•• 
A 
an·ard stood modified in tern1s of the Resolution and as such car 1 be 
inlplemented with etl'ect from January 1, 1988 as resolved and not from 
Septemebr 22, 1982, the dale of Courts award. [133-D-E] 
2. Even if it is assumed th

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.