U.P.
State Road Trasnport Corporation Vs. U.P. Rajya Sadak Parivahan Karamchari
Union .. [2007]
Insc 267 (9 March 2007)
S. B. Sinha & Markandey Katju
[Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 3735 of 2006] [with CA
1238/2007 @ SLP(Civil) Nos. 10406/2006 CA 1236/2007 @ SLP(Civil) Nos.
10407/2006 CA 1237/2007 @ SLP(Civil) Nos. 10408/2006 MARKANDEY KATJU, J.
Leave granted.
These appeals have been directed against the impugned judgment and order
dated 6.9.2005 of the Uttaranchal High Court in Writ Petition No. 774 of 2002.
The appellant - U.P. Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as
the 'Corporation'), has been constituted under the Road Transport Corporation
Act, 1950. The respondent which is a Trade Union of the appellant-Corporation,
filed an Application before the Labour Court, Dehradun under Section 11-C of
the U.P. Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 read with Section 13A of the Industrial
Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, praying
for a declaration that the 15 persons who were appointed on contract basis as
'drivers' and 'conductors' as shown in the annexed chart, be declared as
regular and substantive workmen of the Corporation. It was also prayed in the
said Application that the concerned workmen be given all the benefits and
facilities of regular employees.
The aforesaid Application was allowed by the Labour Court, Dehradun by its
order dated 19.9.2001. The Labour Court directed that the concerned workmen be
given the minimum wages admissible to the regular employees in the pay scales
of 'drivers' and 'conductors'. The Labour Court also held that the said workmen
are employees of the Corporation.
It is not disputed that the concerned workmen were appointed on contract
basis. Before the Labour Court, the Corporation had contended that Rule 2 of
U.P.S.R.T.C Employees (Other than Officers) Service Regulations, 1981
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Regulations') clearly mentions that these
regulations shall not apply to employees working on contract basis. The persons
working on contract basis filed Writ Petition No. 41349/1999 Kanchi Lal and
others vs. U.P.S.R.T.C before the Allahabad High Court for grant of same
benefits as the regular employees of the Corporation, but the said writ
petition had been dismissed. However, the objection of the Corporation was
rejected by the Labour Court. It filed a writ petition thereafter before the
High Court which was dismissed by the impugned judgment.
It was contended in the writ petition by the appellant that the concerned
workmen had not been selected in terms of the process of selection required for
appointment of regular employees and hence they cannot be directed to be given
minimum pay scales of regular employees. It was also contended that the Labour
Court acted beyond its jurisdiction by passing the impugned order dated
19.9.2001 since Section 11-A only permits interpretation and application of a
standing order and not any particular relief which can only be given under the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947.
It may be noted that the scope of Section 11-C is much narrower than the
scope of a regular reference under Section 10 of the Industrial
Disputes Act
or Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial
Disputes Act.
Section 11-C of the U.P. Industrial
Disputes Act states:
"11-C. Interpretation, etc. of standing orders - If any question as to
the application or interpretation of a standing order certified under the Industrial
Employment (Standing
Orders) Act, 1946, any employer or workman may refer the question to any
one of the Labour Courts specified for the disposal of such proceeding by the
State Government by notification in the Official Gazette, and the Labour Court
to which the question is so referred shall, after giving the parties an
opportunity of being heard, decide the question and such decision shall be
final and binding on the parties"
Similarly Section 13-A of the Industrial
Employment (Standing Orders) Act 1946
states:.
"13-A. Interpretation etc. of standing orders - If any question arises
as to the application or interpretation of a standing order certified under
this Act, any employer or workman or a trade union or other representative body
of the workmen may refer the question to any one of the Labour Courts
constituted under the Industrial
Disputes Act,
1947, and specified for the disposal of such proceedings by the appropriate
Government by notification in the Official Gazette, and the Labour Court to
which the question is so referred shall, after giving the parties an
opportunity of being heard, decide the question and such decision shall be
final and binding on the parties".
In our opinion, the power of the Labour Court under Section 11-C of the UP Industrial
Disputes Act or under Section 13-A of the Industrial Employment
(Standing Orders) Act 1946 is much narrower than the power of the Labour Court
on a reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act
which corresponds to Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act.
In our opinion, the Labour Court could not have granted the relief it
granted by the order dated 19.9.2001, as that could only have been granted on a
regular reference under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial
Disputes Act or under Section 10 of the Industrial
Disputes Act.
A perusal of the order of the Labour Court dated 19.9.2001 shows that it has
not referred to any standing order of the appellant. On the other hand,
paragraph 3 of the said order refers to Rule 2 of the 1981 Regulations which
clearly provides that the Regulations do not apply to employees engaged on
contract basis. In our opinion, the Labour Court cannot amend the Regulations
while hearing an application under Section 11-C of the Industrial
Disputes Act.
As already stated above, the scope of Section 11-C is limited to decide a
question arising out of an application or interpretation of a standing order
and the Labour Court cannot go beyond the scope of Section 11-C of the U.P. Industrial
Disputes Act.
For the reasons given above, the appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment
of the High Court as well as the order of the Labour Court dated 19.9.2001 are
set aside. However, it is open to the concerned workmen to raise their
grievances before the concerned authority under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial
Disputes Act or under Section 10 of Industrial
Disputes Act,
as the case may be, and if the State Government refers such a dispute to the Labour
Court or Tribunal, we hope that the same will be decided expeditiously. No
costs.
Back
Pages: 1 2