Kerala High Court
Parvathi Mills vs Quilon Taluk Textiles Labour ... on 9 August, 2016
Author: K.Vinod Chandran
Bench: K.Vinod Chandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/18TH SRAVANA, 1938
WP(C).No. 26096 of 2006 (F)
----------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-------------
PARVATHI MILLS,
UNIT OF NATIONAL TEXTILE CORPORATION(APKK&M)LTD.,, (A
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA UNDERTAKING) P.B.NO.1,, KOLLAM, 691001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER.
BY ADVS.SRI.U.K.RAMAKRISHNAN (SR.)
SRI.E.K.MADHAVAN
SMT.P.VIJAYAMMA
SMT.UMA GOPINATH
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. QUILON TALUK TEXTILES LABOUR UNION(AITUC
KOLLAM,, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY.
2. KERALA TEXTILES WORKERS CONGRESS(INTUC)
PARVATHI MILLS, KOLLAM,, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
3. QUILON PARVATHI MILLS WORKERS UNION(CITU
PARVATHI MILLS, KOLLAM., REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
4. KOLLAM DIST. TEXTILES WORKERS UNION(UTUC)
PARVATHI MILLS, KOLLAM,, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
5. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL,
KOLLAM.
R,R1 BY ADV. SRI.A.JAYASANKAR
R,R1 BY ADV. SRI.MANU GOVIND
R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SAIGY JOSEPH PALATTY (SR.)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-08-2016,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 26096 of 2006 (F)
----------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS EXHIBITS:
EXT.P1 COPY OF CLAIM STATEMENT IN I.D NO.35 OF 2001 DTD. 30.7.02
EXT.P2 COPY OF CLAIM STATEMENT IN I.D NO.35 OF 2001 DTD. 20.9.02 OF
THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXT.P3 COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT DTD. 28.3.03 FILED BY THE
PETITIONER IN I.D NO.35 OF 2001
EXT.P4 COPY OF THE AWARD DTD. 5.8.06 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT IN I.D
NO.35/01
EXT.P5 COPY OF SUMMONS DTD. 3.7.07 ISSUED BY THE LABOUR COURT,
KOLLAM IN CLAIM PETITION NO.36 OF 2007 TOGETHER WITH COPY OF
THE CLAIM PETITION DTD. 19.6.07 FILED BY GENERAL SECRETARY
OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNION.
EXT.P6 COPY OF RECEIPT DTD. 7.2.08 EXECUTED BY SRI. J. MANI
EXT.P7 COPY OF RECEIPT DTD. 8.2.08 EXECUTED BY SRI. M.ASOK KUMAR
EXT.P8 COPY OF RECEIPT DTD. 7.2.08 EXECUTED BY SRI. N. MOHANAN
EXT.P9 COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD. 23.3.08 EXECUTED BY SRI. K. MANILAL
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL
// TRUE COPY //
P.A TO JUDGE
SB
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
=====================
W.P.(C) No.26096 of 2006 - F
======================
Dated this the 09th day of August, 2016
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner Management is aggrieved by Ext.P4 award, which adjudicated the dispute referred, which was as follows:-
"Whether the demand for High-tech allowance to S/Sri.J.Mani, A.O Devassy, K.Manilal, N.Mohanan, M.Asokan working in Air-Jet Icons and Auto Corners as "Maintenance fitters jobbers - is justifiable or not? If not, what relief is entitled to them?"
2. The petitioner's claim itself was raised on the basis of Ext.W1, Memorandum of Settlement dated 25.06.1996. The claim of the workmen was that, since they were involved in a highly skilled employment, they were entitled to High-tech allowance, which was one of the terms considered in the negotiation, which led to settlement dated 25.06.1996. Though the issue was deferred, the Management failed to take up the 2 W.P.(C) No.26096 of 2006 - F issue, despite repeated reminders and avoided consideration of payment of such allowance, on the ground that other workers in the other sections were also demanding the same allowance.
3. The Management submits that they were before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (for brevity "BIFR") from the year 1992 onwards for rehabilitation. The Management contended that the settlement did not speak of the High-tech allowance and specifically deferred consideration of the same, only by reason of the impecunious condition of the Management. The Tribunal in such circumstance, could not have arrived at a decision granting the High-tech allowance, which was not a part of the settlement. The settlement entered into between the representative Union and the Management are binding on both, under Section 18(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Hence the order of the Tribunal has to be set aside, is the contention.
3 W.P.(C) No.26096 of 2006 - F
4. The learned Counsel for the respondent however would urge that the Tribunal was right in finding that there was an agreement between the Management and the Unions that the High-tech allowance was one entitled to the workers doing highly skilled jobs and what was deferred was only a consideration of the computation of the exact amount, which has to be paid as such allowance. The workmen claimed 60% of the wages as available to the technically skilled employees of the company itself.
5. Admittedly the settlement did not arrive at a decision on the issue of High-tech allowance. What was provided in the settlement was that the proposed wages of Rs.1098.89 includes Rs.26 per month being paid as special allowance and "excludes High-tech allowance, which will be discussed and decided later". The Tribunal, according to this Court wrongly came to a conclusion that this gives rise to an inference that the Management had agreed to give High-tech 4 W.P.(C) No.26096 of 2006 - F allowance to the Maintenance fitters or jobbers and that what was left behind is only a decision on the quantum.
6. The finding of the Labour Court that the Management had entered into a commitment to give the High- tech allowance according to this Court on the words employed in the settlement is perverse. There was absolutely no settlement arrived at regarding the High-tech allowance and the same was deferred for consideration. Hence there can be no right found on the employees to get the High-tech allowance as available to the technical staff. It cannot also be said that what remained was only the computation of the allowances. The finding of the Tribunal that only on grant of the High-tech allowance, the settlement would become complete, is not legally sustainable. As is pointed out by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the settlement arrived at between the Management and the representative Union are binding on both the Management and workmen. There can be no further addition 5 W.P.(C) No.26096 of 2006 - F made to the settlement, which was not finally decided and agreed upon by both, after negotiations between the representative Union and the Management. The computation made by the Labour Court of 20% is also without any basis and without any evidence on that. The said computation also exceeds the authority conferred on reference, since the issue referred did not include that. For all the above reasons, Ext.P4 is unsustainable and would stand set aside.
The writ petition would stand allowed. No costs.
Sd/-
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE SB/10/08/2016 // true copy // P.A to Judge