U.P. State Sugar
& Cane Dev. Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Chini Mill Mazdoor Sangh & Ors. [2008] INSC
1654 (26 September 2008)
Judgment
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.5858 OF 2008 (@ Special
Leave Petition (Civil) No.2411 of 2006) U.P. State Sugar & Cane Development
Corporation Limited ...Appellant Chini Mill Mazdoor Sangh & Others. ...Respondents
ALTAMAS KABIR,J.
1.
Leave
granted.
2.
The
respondent Nos.2-15, who are members of the respondent No.1 Union, and had
admittedly been employed under the appellant as "seasonal workmen" as
defined in the Standing Orders governing the conditions of employment of
workmen in 2 vacuum pan sugar factories of the State, raised a claim that
although they had been categorized as "seasonal workmen" they had
been employed by the appellant not only during the crushing season but
throughout the year. It is their grievance that although their services were
utilized as permanent workmen they were paid the salary given to seasonal
workmen. They, therefore, made a representation to the Conciliation Officer
which ultimately resulted in a Reference made by the State of Uttar Pradesh to
the Labour Court on 3.11.1989. The terms of Reference are as follows:
i) Whether 39
employees mentioned in the Schedule `Ka' can be declared permanent by their
employer. If yes, from which date and with other details ?;
ii) Whether the 28
workmen mentioned in the Schedule `Kha' are to be given salary/pay scales on
the 3 posts mentioned against their names by their employer. If yes, from
which date and with other details ?"
3.
At
the very outset it may be recorded that out of 39 employees, referred to in the
terms of reference, 8 have died or have retired from service; 13 have been made
permanent; 4 workmen have not pressed their claim before the Labour Court and
only 14 workmen, mentioned in Schedule `Ka', had continued with their claim
before the Labour Court.
4.
It
may also be noted that the second term of reference was not ultimately pressed
before the Labour Court, which was, therefore, required to adjudicate only on
the claim of the 14 workmen, who remained out of the 39 workmen, that they were
entitled to be declared permanent by the appellant herein.
5.
In
order to appreciate the claim of the said 14 workmen it is necessary to look
into the circumstances and the system of employment which prevail in the sugar
industry in Uttar Pradesh on account of the fact that sugarcane is a seasonal
crop and large numbers of workers are required by the sugar mills during the
crushing season which is between the month of October in a given year to the
month of April of the following year, i.e. roughly for a period of 7 months in
a year. During the remaining part of the year only such employees as are
required for maintenance of the mill are employed as permanent workmen as
defined in the above-mentioned Standing Orders, but there is no bar to the
sugar mills employing even seasonal workmen during the off-season in the mill.
6.
The
other practice which is followed is that workmen from different categories, as
5 defined in the Standing Orders, are promoted to the next higher category as
and when vacancies occur and that merely because the workmen may be required to
perform other functions during the off- season, a claim could not be raised
that such workmen would be entitled to be categorised in the said higher post
in the hierarchy. In order to appreciate the matter with greater clarity the
Standing Orders dated 3.12.1958, as revised and published on 27.9.1988, are
reproduced hereinbelow:
"Relevant
extracts of Standing Orders Uttar Pradesh Extraordinary Gazette, 27th
September, 1988 In pursuance of the provision of clause (3) of Article 348 of
the Constitution the Governor is pleased to order the publication of the
following English translation of notification No.5692 (HI)/XXXVI-2-110 (HI)-77,
dated September 27, 1988:
6 No.5692(HI)
XXXVI-2-110(HI) - 77, Dated September 27, 1988 Whereas, the Standing Orders
governing the conditions of the employment of workmen in vacuum pan sugar
factories of the State were enforced under Government notification No.5436-
ST/XXXVI-A/208-ST-58, dated October 3, 1958;
And whereas, there was
persistent demand for revision of the aforesaid Standing Orders which had
become necessary in view of passage of time;
Xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
B. Classification of workmen
1. Workmen shall be
classified as (i) Permanent, (ii) Seasonal, (iii) Temporary, (iv) Probationers,
(v) Apprentices, and (vi) Substitutes.
(i) A "Permanent
Workman" is one who is engaged on the work of a permanent nature or
permanent requirement lasting throughout the year and has 7 completed his
probationary period, if any, (ii) A "Seasonal workmen" is one who is
engaged only for the crushing season and has completed his probationary period,
if any, (iii) A "Temporary Workman" is one who is engaged for meeting
a temporary or casual requirement.
xxxx xxxx xxxx K.
Special Conditions Governing Employment of Seasonal Workmen
1. A seasonal workman
who has worked or, but for illness or any other unavoidable cause, would have
worked under a factory during the whole of the second half of the last
preceding season shall be employed by the factory in the current season and
shall be entitled to get retaining allowance provided he joins the current
season and works for at least one month. The payment of retaining allowance
shall be made within two months of the date of the commencement of the season.
Explanation -
Unauthorised absence during the second of the last preceding season of a
workman who has not been validly dismissed under these Standing Orders and of a
workman who has been re-employed by the Management in the current season, shall
be deemed to have been condoned by the Management.
2. Every seasonal
workmen who worked during the last season shall be put up on his old job
whether he was in 8 the `R' shift or in any of the usual shifts.
However, if the
exigencies of works so require the management may transfer a workman from one
job to another job or from one shift to another including the `R' shift, so
however, that the number of workman so transferred does not exceed five per
cent of total number of the employees of the factory and that the wages and
status of such workman is not affected in any way.
3. A seasonal
workman, who is a retainer shall be liable to be called on duty at any time in
the off season and if he does not report for duty within 10 days he shall lose
his retaining allowance for the period for which he was called for duty.
4. Where owing to
trade reasons or other reasons necessary for a bona fide Law Off, as given in
Standing Order, `J', it becomes necessary for a factory so to do, it may
discharge the seasonal workman before the close of the season with the previous
permission of the State Labour Commissioner if he so directs Additional Labour
Commission or Regional Additional/ Deputy Labour Commissioner of the area after
paying such compensation to the discharged workman, as may be determined by the
authority granting the permission.
True Copy"
7.
Accepting
the case made out by the 14 employees, the Labour Court came to the 9
conclusion that the said workmen had been engaged during the off season neither
for additional work nor for temporary work, but for the work for which they had
been employed during the crushing season and that the nature of their work was,
therefore, continuous despite the fact that there have been a few breaks in
their work during the off season. The Labour Court came to the conclusion that
the 14 workmen had really been engaged for the major part of the year and that
the breaks in service were resorted to only to prevent them from getting the
benefits enjoyed by a permanent workman. The Labour Court held that the said
workmen came within the definition of permanent workmen, and were, therefore,
entitled to be declared as permanent. The concerned 14 workmen were, therefore,
declared to be permanent from the date of the Award and the appellant was
directed to give them 10 all the benefits that a permanent workman was
entitled to from the same date. The Award of the Labour Court was challenged by
the appellant before the High Court in Writ Petition CMWP No.1263 of 2004.
Accepting the
findings of the Labour Court that the 14 workmen had really been performing
their duties on a permanent basis, the High Court chose not to interfere with
the Award of the Labour Court and dismissed the writ petition.
8.
The
U.P. State Sugarcane Development Corporation Limited is now in appeal before us
questioning both the Award of the Labour Court as also the decision of the High
Court in respect thereof.
9.
Mr.Upadhyay,
learned Advocate who appeared for the appellant -Corporation, reiterated the
stand taken by the appellant before the Labour Court and the High Court that
the work performed by the respondent 11 Nos.2-15 had been wrongly determined
to be of a permanent nature. It was submitted that the said workmen had been
engaged only for the crushing season, but since they were not workmen who were
involved in handling of the sugarcane during the crushing season but were
technical hands, they were also provided with work in the mill during the off
season, not as a matter of right but to provide them with a livelihood during
the off season. It was urged that both the Labour Court, as well as the High
Court, misconstrued the intention of the appellant in coming to a finding that
14 workmen were, in fact, performing the work of a permanent nature which
entitled them to the status of permanent worker.
10.
Mr.
Upadhyay also submitted that since the policy with regard to promotion of
workmen from one category to a higher category 12 depended on the vacancies
available in the next higher category, it was a managerial function, which
could not be usurped by the Labour Court and, in any event, the concept of
redetermining the status of the workmen, on account of the duties performed by
them, did not arise in the present case.
11.
In
support of his submission Mr. Upadhyay firstly referred to a Constitution Bench
decision of this Court in Management of Brooke Bond India (P) Limited v Workmen
[(1966) 2 SCR 465], wherein while considering the power of the Labour Tribunals
and the management to grant promotions, it was observed:
"Generally
speaking, promotion is a management function; but it may be recognized that
there may be occasions when a tribunal may have to interfere with promotions
made by the management where it is felt that persons superseded have been so
superseded on account of mala fides or victimization. Even so after a 13
finding of mala fides or victimization, it is not the function of a tribunal to
consider the merits of various employees itself and then decide whom to promote
or whom not to promote. If any industrial tribunal finds that promotions have
been made which are unjustified on the ground of mala fides or of
victimization, the proper course for it to take is to set aside the promotions
and ask the management to consider the cases of superseded employees and decide
for itself whom to promote, except of course the person whose promotion has
been set aside by the tribunal."
12.
The
other decision relied upon by Mr. Upadhyay is that of this Court in the case of
The Hindustan Lever Limited v The Workmen [(1974) 3 SCC 510], wherein while
considering the question of an employer's right to transfer a workman in the
absence of victimization, unfair labour practice or violation of any condition
of service, this Court reiterated its earlier views and held promotion to be a
management function and the Labour Court could not arrogate to itself such
management funtion 14 in the absence of findings of mala fides or
victimization or any unfair labour practice.
13.
Mr.
Upadhyay submitted that in declaring the concerned workman to be permanent from
the date of the Award the Labour Court had arrogated to itself the functions of
the management which had been held to be beyond the powers of the Labour Court
and the Award was, therefore, liable to be set aside along with the judgment of
the High Court.
14.
Mr.
P.K. De, learned Advocate who appeared for the respondents, supported the
findings and observations of the Labour Court and the High Court and urged that
it had been correctly found that the respondent Nos.2-15 had been performing
work of a permanent nature which is required to be performed throughout the 15
year and not only during the crushing season.
15.
Mr.De
submitted that all the said workmen were technical hands and not labour engaged
to perform manual work during the crushing season. Even during the crushing
season the said workmen were engaged in maintenance of the machinery in the
mill, which was not a seasonal work, but entailed maintenance of the mill
machinery throughout the year. Although, it had been urged on behalf of the
appellant that they were seasonal workmen who had been provided work during the
off season, their work was of a continuous nature which required the appellant
to engage them not only during the crushing season but also during the whole
year.
16.
According
to Mr. De, the definition of the expression "permanent" as used in
the Standing Orders referred not to the 16 employee but to the nature of work
being performed. Since in the instant case the work performed was of a
permanent nature, which required the services of the respondent Nos. 2-15
throughout the year, they had been rightly declared by the Labour Court as
permanent workmen on account of the nature of work performed by them throughout
the year.
17.
Reliance
was placed on the decision of this Court in Jardine Henderson Ltd. v Their
Employees [AIR 1967 SC 515) which was a case involving the payment of gratuity
and provident fund by way of retiring benefits and is of little relevance to
the facts of this case. He also relied on the decision in the Brooke Bond
Limited case (supra) where in the opening paragraphs of the judgment the Tribunal
had expressed the view that although promotion was a management 17 function
and had to be left mainly to the discretion of management, in an appropriate
case the workman had a right to demand relief when the just claim of the senior
employees were overlooked.
18.
Reference
was lastly made to the decision of this Court in Workmen employed by Hindustan
Lever Limited v. Hindustan Lever Limited, [(1984) 4 SCC 392], where reference
had been made to the earlier decisions in the Brooke Bond case (supra) and the
Hindustan Lever Limited case (supra) and an observation had been made that the
view taken in the said cases that promotion is a managerial function may have
to be re-examined in an appropriate case.
19.
Mr.
De contended that the Award of the Labour Court was fully justified in the
facts and circumstances of the case and 18 the High Court had rightly upheld
the same.
20.
From
the facts as set out hereinabove and the submissions made by the respective
parties, we are left to decide the question as to whether even in the light of
the Tribunal's finding that the work performed by the respondent Nos. 2-15 was
of a permanent nature on account whereof their services were required
throughout the year, it could have declared the said workmen to be permanent or
whether such declaration amounted to usurpation of the management's functions
which were beyond its powers.
21.
That
there are different categories of workers employed in the sugar industries,
and, in particular, during the crushing season, is not disputed by any of the
parties. It is not denied that apart from the permanent workmen, the other 19
categories of workmen are employed during the crushing season which begins in
the month of October in a given year and continues till the month of April of
the following year. It is the period during which the sugarcane crop is
harvested, and, thereafter, transported to different mills where they are
crushed for production of sugar. Admittedly, as will appear from Standing Order
No.2, a muster- roll of all employees, who are not permanent, is maintained by
the different sugar mills and at the beginning of the crushing season the
seasonal labour who had worked during the previous crushing season are asked to
join their duties for the crushing season in their old jobs. It is also not
denied that the pay scales of the different categories of workmen are
different.
22.
It
has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that even when the seasonal
workmen are employed during the off season they are paid the same wages as are
paid to them during the crushing season, which is one of the basic distinctions
between them and permanent workmen who are on the rolls of the sugar mills. It
is also an admitted position that, in terms of the policy followed by the sugar
mills, promotions are given from one category to the next higher category
depending on the number of vacancies as are available at a given point of time.
Even in the instant case, of the 39 workmen referred to in the terms of
reference, 13 had been made permanent by the appellant which supports the case
of the appellant that promotion is given from one category to the higher
categories as and when vacancies are available and that such function was
clearly a managerial function which could 21 not have been discharged by the
Labour Court.
23.
We
are in agreement with the views expressed by the Constitution Bench of this
Court in the Brooke Bond case (supra) as also those of the three-Judge Bench in
the Hindustan Lever case (supra). In our view, this is not a case of fitment
depending on the nature of the work performed, but a case of promotion as and
when vacancies are available. Both the Labour Court as well as the High Court
do not appear to have considered this aspect of the matter with the attention
it deserved and proceeded on the basis that this was a case where the
respondent Nos.
2-15 had been denied
their right to be categorised as permanent workmen on account of the nature of
the work performed by them throughout the year. The High Court has, in fact,
merely relied on 22 the findings of the Labour Court without independently
applying its mind to the said aspect of the matter.
24.
We,
therefore, accept the submissions advanced by Mr. Upadhyay and allow the
appeal. The Award of the Labour Court and the Judgment of the High Court impugned
in this appeal, are set aside.
25.
There
will be no order as to costs.
_________________J.(ALTAMAS
KABIR)
_________________J.
Back
Pages: 1 2