Binding industrial award and empty-formality hearing rule govern recovery notice issued to workmen

An industrial award binding under Section 18(3)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 extends to the workmen covered by the establishment, including those in the relevant class of employees, even if not individually impleaded. Because the award arose from a dispute of general application and the unions were heard, its binding force could not be denied on that ground. Where implementation of the award left the bank with no real discretion and the legal position was not genuinely in dispute, a prior hearing before issuing the recovery and remuneration revision notice was unnecessary, as natural justice would then be an empty formality.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the industrial award made in the dispute concerning deposit collectors was binding on the respondent workmen under Section 18(3)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. (ii) Whether the bank was bound to afford a prior hearing before issuing the notice for recovery and revision of remuneration, on the ground of natural justice.

Issue (i): Whether the industrial award made in the dispute concerning deposit collectors was binding on the respondent workmen under Section 18(3)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Analysis: An award of an industrial tribunal, once enforceable, binds not only the parties to the dispute but also the workmen covered by the establishment, including those subsequently employed, under the statutory scheme of Section 18(3)(d). Since the unions representing the collectors were heard in the reference and the award arose from a dispute of general application to the class of workers, the respondents could not contend that the award lacked binding force merely because each individual workman was not separately impleaded.

Conclusion: The award was binding on the respondent workmen.

Issue (ii): Whether the bank was bound to afford a prior hearing before issuing the notice for recovery and revision of remuneration, on the ground of natural justice.

Analysis: Where the legal position flowing from the award was not open to real dispute and the bank had no option but to implement it, a pre-decisional hearing would serve no useful purpose. The requirement of natural justice is not an inflexible formula and may be dispensed with where compliance would be an empty formality. The bank's notice, issued in implementation of the award, therefore did not warrant separate observance of an additional hearing at that stage.

Conclusion: Prior hearing was not required before issuing the notice.

Final Conclusion: The impugned judgment was set aside, the bank's action was upheld, and limited relief against recovery was granted in exercise of constitutional powers to prevent hardship.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory award binding on the class of workmen cannot be defeated by insisting on a hearing that would be an empty formality when no real dispute exists as to the obligation to implement the award.

---