Punjab-Haryana High Court
Naraingarh Sugar Mills Ltd. vs State Of Haryana on 5 April, 2001
JUDGMENT S.S. Sudhalkar, J.
1. This writ petition is filed by the workers Union of a Sugar Mill, The petitioners have filed a list and particulars of workmen at Annexure P/2. The workmen had submitted a Charter of de mands to the management-respondent No. 2, but it paid no heed. This started unrest. The petitioner-Union firstly resorted to the Dhama and then to a strike. FIR was fodged against some of the workmen viz. Ashwani Kaushik, Ajay Kumar Sharma; Yash Pal and Sanjay Kumar Sharma, however, no challah has been filed against them. The administration arid the Labour de partment intervened and an agreement was arrived at on 3.12.1999. Copy of the agreement/settlement is at Annexure P/3. By the said agreement, it was agreed as under:-
"i) That to maintain the industrial peace the workmen will bring to an end the hunger strike.
ii) As soon as the season of 1999-2000 would begin the management would take on duty all the workmen who were working in the previous season. The workers who raised slogans against the management during the strike and who abused the management they would beg pardon in writing from the management and then they would be taken on duty. The workers against whom the FIR is lodged they would not be taken on duty and they would be allowed to join duties as per the atmosphere.
iii) The workers would be allowed to join duties as per their category.
iv) In future the workers would be given the appointment letter as per their category.
v) A committee of four persons would be constituted in which two members from each side would be appointed. This committee would prepare the seniority list as per their category which will be acceptable to both the parties.
vi) The management would initiate the recommen-dations of Sugar Wage Board and this process would be completed within a period of three years. Besides this it is also settled that no worker would be paid less than the minimum wages. All the workmen would be allowed the holidays as per the Holiday Act of 1965. Such as National holidays, festival holidays, casual holidays and this will include the weekly holiday also.
In the end the workers have assured that they would also help in the full production maintaining the discipline and the management would not resort any sort of biased attitude towards any worker due to the said strike."
3. It is the contention of the petitioners that because of the agreement, the workmen brought an end to the strike. It is contended that as per clause (ii) of the settlement, as soon as the season of cane crushing began, they should have been allowed to resume the duties and according to clause (iii) of the agreement, they would be appointed category-wise. However, the management did not abide by the agreement and is whiling over the time. It is contended that as per the Standing orders, the position of the workmen is maximum that of the suspended employees, and they are entitled to subsistence allowance and even if it is assumed (though no admitted) that some enquiry or trial is pending against them, the FIR was only against a few of the workmen.
4. It is further contended that the Union represented to the Labour Commissioner on 31.3.2000 for enforce ment of agreement, but nothing was heard. On 1.5.2000, the Management gave an evasive reply to the Union and according to it, it is not interested in solving the problem of workmen and is not willing to enforce the agreement and is not allowing them to resume their duties.
5. The respondent-management in its written statement has contended that the Sugar Industry, in which the respondent is dealing is a seasonal industry and the season runs approximately from the month of November to April every year and in the period of six months, only a skeleton staff, remains. In view of this position, there is a classification of workers in the Standing orders, which is as under :-
1. Permanent
2. Probationer
3. Temporary
4. Apprentice
5. Casual
6. Badli or substitute
7. Seasonal employee.
6. It is further contended that when the petitioner-Union took up cudgels on behalf of 281 workmen, mentioned in the list Annexure P/2, it was not specified as to in what capacity they were working and that there is a deliberate attempt to include those persons for the various reliefs under the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") on the vague statement that those workers had worked for more than 240 days. It is further contended that no details have been given and only the date of alleged payment and dates on which they were allegedly not allowed to work, havebeen given and even the dates are wrong. It is further stated that the said respondent had no record of all the workers mentioned in the list Annexure P/2 other than the workers at Sr. No. 1 to 4, 19, 23, 27, 28, 30, 32, 33, 35, 64, 72, 78, 79, 110, 112 to 115, 124, 130, 155, 157 and 230.
7. It is further contended that the petitioners are relying on the settlement dated 31.12.1999 and as per condition No. 2 of the settlement, only those workers who had worked in the last/preceding season, were to be considered. The respondents insisted upon the said condition to ensure that only genuine workers are employed and to foil the attempts of the petitioner-Union to impose outsiders masquerading as workers.
8. It is further contended that it was the belief of the respondent that a number of persons who had never worked in the mill were trying to get employment by the said method and that this belief was found to he correct after seeing the list, Annexure P/2, wherein most of the persons were not the employees of the respondent. It is further contended that they did not approach the Mill for work. On the contrary, they tried to force the District authorities to ensure that they got the employment. It is further contended that as per trie settlement, all the workers of last season would be taken on work and the workmen who had indulged into slogan shouting and abuses would apologise to the management in writing. Regarding workers against whom FIR was filed, they would not be taken on work and would be taken up only as per the circumstances.
9. It is further contended that in pursuance to the settlement, the respondent-management put notices on the notice board stating the workers to report for duty. Copy of the notices are at Annexures R/2-10 and R/2-11. Letter was also sent to the Labour Commissioner on 7.12.1999 explaining the position that none of the workers had reported for duty. It is further contended that the workers never came to the Mill for joining duty but continued to represent in numbers before the Sub Divisional Magistrate.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the question that arises is whether in this writ petition, this court can grant reliefs to the petitioner as claimed for. Except for the workmen in the list Annexure P/2, whose names have been admitted as mentioned above, the respondent-management has not admitted that they were their workmen. So there is a dispute of fact as to whether rest of the persons mentioned in the list were actually workmen of the respondent or not. For deciding this contested question of fact, the writ petition will not be a proper remedy. It is a question of evidence to be led, considered and discussed. Leading of evidence will include, examination- in-chief (affidavit/s), and cross-examination also. Without leading of evidence, this contested question of fact cannot be decided.
10. Regarding the persons in the list, who had admittedly worked with the respondent-Management, counsel for the respondent argued that the settlement took phce during the cane crushing season of the year 1999 on 3.12.1999. However, the workmen did not join. According to the learned counsel, now to take them during the midst of the present season would mean that those persons, who had not joined in the year 1999 will have to be appointed in the season which started in the year 2001. Moreover, the person who are now employed will have to be retrenched if the members of the petitioner-union are allowed to join in the midst of the season and this will create further labour problem. The question whether the said workmen did not join after the settlement in the year 1999 or when not allowed to join is again disputed question of fact to be decided. This also cannot be decided in this writ petition. The proper remedy, therefore, would be only under the Industrial Disputes Act and not by filing this writ petition.
11. Various authorities have been cited regarding maintainability of the writ petition. I do not go into the discussion regarding the same in view of the fact that even if the writ petition is held to be maintainable, necessary relief cannot be granted in this writ petition because the disputed questions of fact cannot be decided in this writ petition.
12. Counsel for the respondent-management has argued that the settlement was for that particular season and not for subsequent periods. When I am holding that the writ petition is not the proper remedy (because of the factual aspects to be considered), I do not delve into this point which may be considered by the appropriate forum, if so approached.
As a result, this writ petition is dismissed however, with the observation that the petitioners may resort to the remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 if so advised.
13. Writ petition dismissed.