Delhi District Court
Ar For The vs Sh. Sukhbir Singh on 18 February, 2008
:1:
IN THE COURT OF SH. I.S. MEHTA:
PRESIDING OFFICER: INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.I:
ROOM NO.2: KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI.
ID No. 50/02
BETWEEN
The management of
(1)Sawhney Rubber Industries
Plot No.70, 630, Rama Road,
Industrial Area Scheme,
Nazafgarh Road, New Delhi-15.
(2)Sawhney Rubber Industries
B-1,B-2, Industrial Estate,
G.T. Road,Jhilmil Industrial Area,
Shahdara, Delhi-95
AND
Its workmen
C/o Sawhney Rubber Industries Mazdoor Union,
E-59/104, Kalandar Colony, Dilshad Garden,
Shahdara, Delhi-95.
Date of Institution :- 09.07.2002
Date of Reserve for order :- 11.02.2008
Date of Pronouncement of Award :- 18.02.2008
AR for the Workman : Sh. Sukhbir Singh
AR for the Management : Sh. R. S. Lakhotia
AWARD
Secretary (Labour), Govt. of the National Capital Territory of
Delhi has referred this dispute arising between the parties, named above
for adjudication vide notification No.F.24(891)/2002/Lab./3100-05 Dated
26.06.2002 with the following term of the reference :-
:2:
"Whether action of the management of Rama Road Unit
in directing the workmen to report duty in three shifts
vide order dated 31.08.2001 is illegal and/or unjustified
and if so, to what relief the workmen are entitled and
what directions are necessary in this respect?"
1.In the statement of claim, filed by the workman, it is stated that the workmen concerned were working with the management. Vide notice dated 31.8.2001, the management divided the duty hours of workmen in three shifts i.e. from 6.00 am to 2.00 pm, 2.00 pm to 10.00 pm and 10.00 pm to 6.00 am, which is illegal, bad and just to harass the workmen. The workmen refused to work in the said three shifts as earlier they were doing their duty in two shifts i.e. 8.00 am to 8.00 pm and 8.00 pm to 8.00 am. The management was not paying wages to the workmen according to their work and designation. It is prayed that the notice of management dated 31.08.2001 be held illegal and set aside.
2. Written Statement filed stating therein that the management shifted its one section namely Bead Wire Section from the factory run in the name of M/s Sawhney Rubber Industries at Jhilmil Industrial Area to its other factory at Plot no.7, Rama Road, New Delhi and also transferred the workmen who were working in that section in shifts. The management has the power to introduce shift working as per Certified Standing Orders as well as Model Standing Orders. The workmen joined :3: their duties on 31.08.2001 but did not report for duty from 01.09.2001. Out of 85 workmen, 31 workmen settled their accounts with the management. It is prayed that the claim of the workman be dismissed.
3. Learned AR of the workman did not file the rejoinder. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :-
1. Whether the Union through which claim has been filed has locus standi to raise the dispute? If not, its effect.
2. As per terms of reference.
4. Workmen examined Sh. Sukhbir Singh as WW1, who tendered affidavit Ex.WW1/A and relied upon the documents Ex.WW1/1 to WW1/4 and Sh. Anil Kumar, who proved his affidavit Ex.WW2/A. On the other hand, management examined MW1 Sh.Anoop Kumar, who proved his affidavit Ex.MW1/A and relied upon the documents Ex.MW1/1 and MW1/5.
1. Learned ARW- Sh.Sukhbir Singh has submitted that the management is indulging in unfair labour practice and has transferred 95 workers to different places in contravention of service conditions and thereafter, further imposed the shift working system, which is illegal and bad. He has further submitted that so far, the case of illegal transfer is :4: concerned, the workman raised the industrial dispute case before the Industrial Tribunal No. II, which is pending adjudication before the Court. He has further submitted that the management by imposing the shift system changed the service conditions of the workmen by not issuing notice U/Section 9-A of the ID Act, therefore, the shifting order dated 31.08.2001 be set aside.
2. On the other hand, Learned ARM- Sh. R.S. Lakhotia has submitted that the management has not violated the service conditions of the workman. So far, the order dated 31.08.2001 issued by the management directing the workman to report in three shifts, is concerned, the same is justified as per the Standing Orders of the management.
ISSUE NO. 1.
3. The workman in order to prove the issue no. 1, has examined Sh. Sukhbir Singh- Secretary of the Union, who has proved the resolution dated 31.08.2001 Ex.WW1/3. He has also proved the certificate of registration of the union Ex.WW1/4.
4. The statement of claim is filed through the union and signed by the Secretary of the Union. The union Sawhney Rubber Industries Mazdoor Union, E-59/704, Kalander Colony, Dilshad Garden, Delhi-96, :5: has represented the cause of the workman before the Government in the present reference bearing no. F.24 (891)/ 2002 / Lab/13100-05 dated 26.06.2002. Therefore, the union has locus- standi to file the claim in the present case and has rightly espoused the cause of the workman. This issue is decided in favour of the workman and against the management. ISSUE NO. 2.
5. The workman in their statement of claim has stated that the management without issuing the notice U/Sec. 9-A of the ID Act, vide order dated 31.08.2001 directed the workmen to report for duty in three shifts, which is illegal as the same changes the service conditions of the workman.
6. On the other hand, the management in its written statement has denied the allegations and stated that the management has its Certified Standing Orders, which provides the provisions for working in shifts. Therefore, the management has not violated the service conditions of the workman.
7. The management has examined Sh.Anoop Kumar Sethi-
Manager (Administrative) of the management, who has proved the certificate of Standing Orders of the management which is Ex.MW1/3. :6: The Clause 11 & 12 of the Standing Orders (Ex.MW1/3) are reproduced as under :-
11.SHIFT WORKING.
More than one shift may be worked in a department, or departments, or any section of a department, of the factory at the discretion of the Company.
12. If more than shift is worked, the employees shall be liable to be transferred from one shift to another, and the shift may be alternated at the discretion of the Company.
8. As per the Standing Orders (Ex.MW1/3), the shift system is applicable to the workmen of the management. It is the management's discretion to take work in the shift system. Therefore, there is no violation of service conditions of the workman. So far, the transfer of the workmen from one place to another is concerned, the same is not the subject matter of the present reference. Therefore, this issue is decided in favour of the management and against the workmen.
9. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances and discussions made above, I hold that the order of the management dated 31.08.2001 is not unjustified and as such, there is no violation of the service :7: conditions of the workmen, however, the order of this Award, will not affect the merit of the case in another industrial disputes of the workmen pertaining to the transfers. The workmen are not entitled to any relief towards the present reference. The reference is answered against the workman. Award is passed, accordingly.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT Dated: 18.02.2008.
[ I.S. MEHTA ] PRESIDING OFFICER:
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.I:
DELHI.