M/S
National Textile Corporation (APKKM) Limited. Vs. Sree Yellamma Cotton, Woollen
and Silk Mills Staff Associat [2001] Insc 27 (18 January 2001)
S.V.Patil,
S.R.Babu Rajendra Babu, J. :
L.J
The employees
of the appellant-Corporation fall into three categories and they are
(i) technical
persons and Supervisors,
(ii) ministerial
staff and
(iii) workmen.
As
regards the second category of employees a settlement was entered into on
3.9.1979 which was to be effective for a period of five years from 1.10.78. The
said settlement also provided that the ministerial staff shall not make any
claim or demand for the revision of any of the terms and conditions covered by
the settlement or make any demand involving additional financial burden on the
mills subject however to clause 5 of the settlement and a provision was also
made for dearness allowance which would be in force for a period of three years
from 1.10.1978. With regard to third category of employees the appellants
entered into two settlements as a result of which workers agreed to work on
seven-day-a-week- working system from 16.11.1980 thereby the weekly holiday
stood changed and in addition certain increases in emoluments have been
provided to them. The second category of employees-ministerial staff raised an
industrial dispute which was referred by the Government of Karnataka on the
following two questions :
(1) whether
the appellant is justified in changing the weekly holidays of the staff members
with effect from 16.11.1980?
(2)
Are the employees in the second category justified in demanding 4 per cent
increase in emoluments and payment of Rs. 52.20 per staff member per month at
par with the mill workers?
The Labour Court answered both the questions in the
affirmative and made an award that the increased emoluments to the second
category of workmen will become payable from 1.10.1983. The correctness of the
said award was challenged in a writ petition filed by the appellant. The
learned Single Judge of the High Court, while deciding the writ petition held
that the settlement dated 3.9.1979 which became effective from 1.10.78 having
been acted upon and during the subsistence of the settlement, the reference
could not have been made and, moreover, the parity claimed in the emoluments to
be paid to the workmen and the ministerial staff forming separate categories
cannot be drawn and, therefore, enhancing the remuneration from 1.10.1983 is
untenable and allowed the writ petition by setting aside the award made by the Labour
Court and rejecting the reference made by the Government. On an appeal, the
Division Bench of the High Court reversed the decision of the learned Single
Judge and restored the award made by the Labour Court. Hence this appeal.
The
view of the learned Single Judge is commended for acceptance by the learned
counsel for the appellants.
Undoubtedly,
the legal position is that during the subsistence of a settlement it is not
open to any of the parties to raise a dispute. A settlement once entered into
between the parties shall be operative until the same is terminated as provided
in Section 19 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [hereinafter referred to as
the Act].
The
object of such a provision is to ensure that once a settlement is entered into
then industrial peace prevails according cordialities between the parties
during the period agreed upon. The same position should continue by extension
of the settlement by operation of law. There is an option given to either party
to terminate the settlement and such a course having not been adopted in the
present case the dispute could not have been raised by the parties. But in an
appropriate case Government may make a reference under the Act on the ground
that since the time settlement was entered into there has been material change
in the circumstances. In the present case, the Labour Court noticed such a situation arising as a result of the second
settlement entered into with the workmen that is the third category of
employees. In the original settlement between the parties there has been no
provision of working the mills all seven days in a week nor was any provision
made in regard higher emolument applicable to either class of workmen. The Labour
Court noticed that a gardner who had been categorised as a member of the staff
coming under category two could get less emoluments than his helper who comes
under category three and, therefore, in those special circumstances in view of
the change in the working conditions the Labour Court gave relief to the
employees coming under second category but from a date on the expiry of the
agreed settlement entered into by the parties, namely, 1.10.1983. Section 19 of
the Act limits the variation of settlement but if there has been any material
change in the circumstances available in the establishment of an employer
certainly such a situation can not be ignored altogether to state that
settlement alone should be adhered to whatever be the situation. If such a
settlement cannot be worked out in a congenial atmosphere between the workmen
and the employer it will be difficult to maintain industrial peace and these
aspects are to be borne in mind by the Labour Court. We do not think that such considerations would be
altogether irrelevant in giving the relief as sought for by the respondents and
to deny the same on the short ground of reference not being maintainable.
Secondly,
on the question whether there should be parity in payment between the employees
working in the establishment in different categories, ultimately what decides
the matter is a sense of fairness in providing different scales of pay. If, as
stated earlier, a gardner was to get less emoluments by treating him under
category two, his helper were to receive higher emoluments in view of the
second settlement entered into with category three to which Helper belongs, the
whole system smacks of arbitrariness and unfair treatment of different
categories of employees. What has to be seen ultimately is whether the
emoluments that are paid to the second category of employees become unfair in
view of increase in the emoluments given to other classes of employees. By
bearing in mind the increased work load and the nature of employment the Labour Court took the view that similar increase
should be there in the emoluments. We do not think, such reasoning is
unjustifiable. Therefore, in the special features of this case the learned
Single Judge of the High Court ought not to have interfered with the order made
by the Labour Court.
Therefore,
the Division Bench was justified in setting aside the order made by the learned
Single Judge for the reasons stated by us. We find good reasons to maintain the
award made by the Labour
Court in reversal of
the decision of the learned Single Judge in the writ petition.
For
the aforesaid reasons, this appeal stands dismissed. However, in the
circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.
Back