Gauhati High Court
Food Corporation Of India And Anr. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 28 September, 2001
Equivalent citations: [2002(94)FLR118]
Author: A.K. Patnaik
Bench: A.K. Patnaik
JUDGMENT A.K. Patnaik, J.
1. An industrial dispute arose between the Food Corporation of India, and its workmen, and conciliation having failed, by an order dated 27.10.1993, the Central Government referred the following points in dispute to the Industrial Tribunal, Guwahati, (for short, "the Tribunal") for adjudication under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (for short, "the Act, 1947"):
"Whether the claim of wages of 37 workers w.e.f. 1.8.1988 to 31.10.1989 (15 months) at par with direct payment system workers of Food Corporation of India is justified? If so, what relief the workers concerned are entitled to?"
2. Written Statements were filed by the Management of the Food Corporation of India, (for short, "the FCI") as well as the workmen represented by the General Secretary, FCI Workers' Union, the case of the FCI in its written statement before the Tribunal, inter alia, was that the 37 workers were engaged at Hapania by the Central Warehousing Corporation, (for short, "The CWC") for the work of loading, unloading, etc. at the Warehouses where the food-grains of the FCI were stored during the period 1.8.1988 to 31.10.1989 and, therefore, the said 37 workers were not entitled to wages at par with direct payment system workers of the FCI. The case of the workmen in their written statement, on the other hand, was that the 37 workers were actually the workers of the FCI and were entitled to wages at par with direct payment system workers of the FCI. The CWC filed a petition before the Tribunal for being impleaded which was allowed and the CWC filed its written statement. Evidence was adduced by the respective parties. In its Award notified on 14.10.1998, the Tribunal held that there existed a relationship of employer and employee between the Management of FCI and of the workers who, had been working for loading and unloading of goods of the FCI at Hapania, and they were legally entitled to have the benefits of wage rates of settlement dated 7/9.11.1988 effective from 1.11.1988, and deprivation of the benefits under the said settlement dated 7/ 9.11.1988 on the plea that they were not the workers of the FCI was arbitrary and not legally tenable in the eye of law, and directed the Management of the FCI to pay the wages under the Direct Payment System of settlement of 1988 forthwith to the 37 workers. The petitioners, namely, the FCI and the District Manager, FCI, Agartala, have filed this writ petition for quashing the said Award of the Tribunal.
3. Mr. S. Deb, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to implead the CWC as a party as under Sub-section (5) of Section 10 of the Act, 1947, the appropriate Government has been vested with the power to include in a Reference any establishment, group or class of establishments other than those already included in the Reference and, therefore, the Award of the Tribunal was beyond its jurisdiction and is liable to be quashed. Mr Deb further submitted that the Tribunal had the limited jurisdiction of deciding the dispute referred to it by the appropriate Government and the dispute referred to the Tribunal was whether the claim of wages of 37 workers with effect from 1.8.1988 to 31.10.1989 at par with direct payment system workers of the FCI was justified and, if so, what relief the workers concerned were entitled to? Mr. Deb vehemently argued that no Reference was made to the Tribunal as to whether or not the deprivation of benefits under the settlement dated 7/9.11.1988 was arbitrary and that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by holding that deprivation of benefits under the settlement dated 7/9.11.1988 on the plea that they were not the workers of the FCI was arbitrary. In support of this submission, Mr. Deb cited the decision of the Supreme Court in Bharat Bank v. Employees of Bharat Bank, AIR (37) 1950 SC 188, and in particular the observations of Mahajan, J, therein that a duty has been cast in the Industrial Tribunal to adjudicate a dispute referred to it in accordance with the provision of the Act, 1947. Mr. Deb submitted that in Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India (P) Ltd. v. UIC Workmen, (1981) 3 SCC 451, the Supreme Court held that where the issue of unfair labour practice or discrimination was not a matter referred to the Tribunal for adjudication, the Tribunal travelled outside its jurisdiction in recording a finding of unfair labour practice and discrimination. Mr. Deb also cited a recent decision of the Supreme Court in Gouri Sankar . Chatterjee v. TEXMACO Ltd., (2001) 2 SCC 257, in which its earlier decision in Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India (P) Ltd. v. Workmen (supra) was followed. Mr. Deb further submitted that the 37 workers at the Hapania Depot were being paid at piece rate of Rs.0.21 p. per bag during the period 1.8.188 to 31.10.1989 and that the settlement dated 7/9.11.1988 providing for wages at revised rates was for the direct payment system workers of the FCI and not for the 37 workers at the Hapania Depot. The Tribunal by holding that the 37 workers were legally entitled to have the benefits of revised wage rate under the settlement dated 7/9.11.1988 has re-written the settlement dated 7/9.11.988 and has thus exceeded its jurisdiction.
4. Mr. A.KBhowmick, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3, the workmen represented by the General Secretary, FCI Workers' Union, on the other hand, contended that the impugned Award of the Tribunal was based on findings of fact on the basis of evidence that was adduced by the parties before the Tribunal, and this court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot disturb such findings of fact. In support of this submission, Mr. Bhowmlck relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Indian Overseas Bank v. IOB Staff Canteen Workers Union, AIR 2000 SC 1508. In reply to the submission of Mr. Deb that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by impleading the CWC as a party in the Reference, Mr. Bhowmick contended that the CWC was impleaded as a party by the Tribunal in consonance with the principles of natural justice. He explained that since the FCI had taken a plea in its written statement that the 37 workers were employees of the CWC, the Tribunal thought it fit to make the CWC a party before deciding the Reference. Mr. Bhowmick further submitted that after considering the whole evidence adduced by the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that deprivation of benefits under the settlement dated 7/9.11.1988 to the 37 workers was arbitrary and such a finding of the Tribunal was for the purpose of answering the Reference made by the Central Government to the Tribunal and the said finding was therefore not beyond the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. He pointed out that the 37 workers have been getting wages from the FCI under the direct payment system from 1.9.1992 and the Tribunal has not rewritten the settlement dated 7/9.11.1988 but has only held that the 37 workers were also entitled to same wages as were being paid under the said settlement to other workers. According to Mr. Bhowmick therefore there is no infirmity in the Award of the Tribunal.
5. The first question which has to be decided in this case is whether the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to implead the CWC as a party. Mr. Deb, learned counsel for he petitioners has relied on Sub-section (5) of Section 10 of the Act, 1947, for his submission that it is only the appropriate Government which has been vested with the power to include in a Reference any establishment, group or class of establishments which had not been included earlier in the order of Reference. But a plain reading of Sub-section (5) of Section 10 of the Act, 1947 shows that the power vested in the appropriate Government under the said Sub-section (5) of Section 10 to add a party to a Reference Is not exclusive. There is nothing in the said Sub-section (5) of Section of the Act, 1947 to show that a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal to which a Reference is made cannot add a party to a Reference. On the other hand, there is an indication in Sub-section (3) of Section 18 of the Act, 1947, that a Tribunal can summon parties other than parties to the Industrial Dispute to appear in the proceedings before It. Section 18 of trie Act, 1947, is quoted hereunder:
"18. Persons on whom settlements and awards are bindings. - (1) A settlement arrived at by agreement between the employer and workman otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceeding shall be binding on the parties to the agreement.
(2) Subject to the provisions of Sub-section (3), an arbitration award which has become enforceable shall be binding on the parties to the agreement who referred the dispute to arbitration.
(3) A settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings under this Act (or an arbitration award in a case where a notification has been issued under Sub-section (3A) of Section 10(A) or an award of a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal) which has become enforceable shall be binding on -
(a) all parties to the industrial dispute.
(b) all other parties summoned to appear in the proceedings as parties to the dispute, unless the Board, (arbitrator) (Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal), as the case may be, records the opinion that they were so summoned without proper cause;
(c) where a party referred to in Clause (a) or Clause (b) is an employer, his heirs, successors or assigns in respect of the establishment to which the dispute relates;
(d) where a party referred to in Clause (a) or Clause (b) is composed of workmen, all persons who were employed in the establishment or part of the establishment, as the case may be, to which the dispute relates on the date of the dispute and all persons who subsequently become employed in that establishment or part."
6. A reading of Sub-section (3) of Section 18, quoted above, would show that an Award of the Tribunal which has become enforceable shall be binding on not only all parties to the industrial dispute as indicated in Clause (a) of Sub-section (3), but also on all other parties summoned to appear in the proceedings as parties to the proceedings unless the Tribunal records the opinion that they were so summoned without proper cause. It is thus clear from Sub-section (3) of Section 18 of the Act, 1947, that the Legislature did not intend to vest exclusive power in the appropriate Government under Sub-section (5) of Section 10 of the Act, 1947, to add a party to a Reference. It has been held by the Supreme Court in Hochtief Gammon v. Industrial Tribunal, AIR 1964 SC 1746:
"Section 10(4) which was also added by the same amending Act provides," inter alia, that the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal would be confined to the points of dispute specified by the order of reference, and adds that the said jurisdiction may take within its sweep matters incidental to the said points. In other words, where certain points of dispute have been referred to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication, It may, while dealing with the said points deal with matters incidental thereto, and that means that if, while dealing with such incidental matters, the Tribunal feels that some persons who are not joined to the reference should be brought before it, it may be able to make an order in that behalf under Section 18(3) as it now stands."
7. The Reference in the present case before the Tribunal was as to whether the claim of wages of 37 workers with effect form 1.8.1988 to 31.10.1989 at par with direct payment system workers of Food Corporation of India was justified. The case of the FCI, the petitioner, before the Tribunal was that these 37 workers were the employees of the CWC. On these facts, if the CWC filed a petition before the Tribunal for being impleaded as a party and the said petition was allowed by the Tribunal and the CWC filed its written statement and was heard by the Tribunal, the Tribunal had not exceeded its jurisdiction in impleading the CWC as a party.
8. The second question which needs to be decided in this case is whether the finding of the Tribunal that the deprivation of benefits under the settlement dated 7/9.11.1988 to the 37 workers was arbitrary was in excess of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Sub-section (4) of Section 10 of the Act, 1947, provides that where in an order referring an industrial dispute to a Tribunal under Section 10, the appropriate Government has specified the points of dispute for adjudication, the Tribunal shall confine its adjudication to those points and matters incidental thereto. In the order of Reference, the points of dispute for adjudication specified by the appropriate Government were whether the claim of wages of 37 workers with effect form 1.8.1988 to 31.10.1989 at par with direct payment system workers of Food Corporation of India was justified and, if so, what relief the workers concerned were entitled to? In the written statement filed on behalf of the workmen, and in particular paragraphs 6,7,8 and 9, it has been stated that the 37 workers were paid 0.21 p. for handling a bag i.e, Rs.21/- for handling of 100 bags, and subsequently the rate of wages was revised by a settlement arrived at between the Management of the FCI and the FCI Workers' Union on 7.11.1988 and this settlement was made applicable with effect from 1.9.1988 and as per the said settlement the rate of wages was fixed at Rs.87.50 for 100 bags and the minimum guarantee in wage was fixed at Rs.26 per day or Rs.780 per month. The benefits of this settlement dated 7.11.1988 were not extended to the workers working at Hapania Depot though the same was made applicable to the nearby Depot at Agartala and the concerned workmen at Hapania Depot were illegally deprived of their revised wages in terms of the said settlement dated 7.11.1988 and were Illegally discriminated to have their equal wages as being paid to the other workers. The Management of the FCI, the petitioner, therefore had the notice of the said pleadings in paragraphs 6,7,8 and 9 of the written statement filed on behalf of the workmen. After considering the pleadings of the workmen as well as the Management of the FCI, and the evidence adduced by the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion in the impugned Award that the 37 workers were legally entitled to have the benefits of wage rates of settlement dated 7.11.1988 effective from 1.9.1988, and deprivation of the benefits under settlement dated 9.11.1988 on the plea that they were not the workers of the FCI was arbitrary and not legally tenable in the eye of law. In other words, the Tribunal held that the Management of the FCI was not justified in denying the claim of wages of 37 workers with effect from 1.8.1988 to 31.10.1989 at the same rate as was fixed under the settlement dated 7/9.11.1988 for the other workers of the FCI. To put this conclusion of the Tribunal in the impugned Award positively, the Tribunal held that the claim of wages of 37 workers with effect from 1.8.1988 to 31.10.1989 at par with direct payment system workers of the FCI was justified. The Tribunal therefore only decided the points of adjudication referred to it by the Central Government in the order of Reference, and was well within its jurisdiction conferred by Sub-section (4) of Section 10 of the Act, 1947.
9. In Bharat Bank v. Employees of Bharat Bank (supra), cited by Mr. Deb, Mahajanm, J, held:
"...Power to adjudicate on such a dispute is given by Section 7 of the statute to an Industrial Tribunal and a duty is cast on it to adjudicate it in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The words underlined (italicised) clearly Imply that the dispute has to be adjudicated according to law and not in any other manner. When the dispute has to be adjudicated in accordance with the provisions of the Act, it follows that the tribunal has to adhere to law, though that law may be different from the law that an ordinary Court of justice administers...."
In the aforesaid decision, Mahajan, J, clearly held that a dispute referred to a Tribunal has to be adjudicated according to law. In the present case, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that deprivation of the benefits under the settlement dated 7/9.11.1988 to the 37 workers was arbitrary, cannot be said to an adjudication of the dispute contrary to law. Arbitrariness is the antithesis of law, and if the Tribunal decided that the Management of the FCI had acted arbitrarily in depriving the benefits under the settlement dated 7/ 9.11,1988 to the 37 workers, this court cannot hold that such adjudication by the Tribunal has not been in accordance with law.
10. In Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India (P) Ltd. v. Workmen (supra), cited by Mr. Deb, the Supreme Court found that the issue of unfair labour practice or discrimination by reason of subsequent reinstatement on a permanent basis of some and not all the 25 workmen was not a matter referred to the Tribunal for adjudication, nor it could be said to be in any way connected with or incidental to the right of reinstatement claimed by the 101 workmen from the date of their dismissal. On these facts, the Supreme Court held that the fairness of subsequent absorption of some workmen was a matter quite irrelevant for judging the validity of the earlier dismissal of these workmen along with others; it was an entirely separate and independent question, and the Tribunal also did not frame an issue on the alleged discrimination. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal travelled outside its jurisdiction in recording a finding of unfair labour practice and discrimination. But in the present case, the points of dispute referred to the Tribunal for adjudication were as to whether the claim of wages of 37 workers with effect from 1.8.1988 to 31.10.1989 at par with direct payment system workers of the FCI was justified, and if so, what reliefs the workers concerned were entitled to? The aforesaid points of dispute referred for adjudication by the Tribunal were whether for the period 1.8.1988 to 31.10.1989 the 37 workers were entitled to same wages as other workers under the direct payment system of the FCI. The other workers under the direct payment system of the FCI were being paid wages as revised by the settlement date 7/9.11.1988 and hence the Tribunal had to adjudicate as to whether or not deprivation of same wages as revised under the settlement dated 7/9.11.1988 to the 37 workers was arbitrary. The conclusion of the Tribunal that deprivation of the benefits of revised wages under the settlement dated 7/9.11.1988 to the 37 workers was arbitrary therefore cannot be held to be beyond the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.
11. In Gouri Sankar Chatterjee v. TEXMACO Ltd., (supra), cited by Mr Deb, the Tribunal's Award had been challenged in the High Court and the Division Bench of the High Court held that the main issue referred to the Tribunal was whether Badli workmen should be regularised, and for arriving at a just conclusion it was permissible for the Tribunal to consider as to how the workmen had been treated and as to whether they had been subjected to unfair labour practice or not, but while doing so, the Tribunal did not put the Management on notice. The Division Bench of the High Court relied on Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India (P)Ltd's case, and held that the Tribunal should consider the matter afresh in accordance with law and set aside the Award of the Tribunal and directed that a decision be taken by the Tribunal within 3 months of the date of communication of the order. On these facts, the Supreme Court did not interfere with the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court. But in the present case, as discussed above, in paragraphs 6,7,8 and 9 of the written statement filed on behalf of the workmen a specific plea had been taken that the concerned 37 workers had been illegally and in a discriminatory manner deprived of the benefits of revised wages fixed under the settlement dated 7/9.11.1988 for other workers of the FCI. The Management of the FCI, the petitioners, therefore had been put to notice about the aforesaid case of the workmen and the petitioners had due opportunity to lead evidence before the Tribunal on the aforesaid points raised by the workmen in their written statement. Therefore, the question of setting aside the impugned Award of the Tribunal and remanding the matter to the Tribunal for a fresh decision does not arise.
12. The last contention raised by Mr. Deb was that the Tribunal by holding that the 37 workers were legally entitled to have the benefits of revised wages rate under the settlement dated 7/9.11.1988 has re-written the settlement dated 7/9.11.1988 and has thus exceeded its jurisdiction. Under Sub-section (1) of Section 18 of the Act, 1947, quoted above, a settlement arrived at between the employer and workman otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceeding shall be binding on the parties to the agreement. Hence, if under the settlement between the Management of the FCI and the FCI Workers' Union arrived at on 7/9.11.1988 the 37 workers working at Hapania Depot were not to be paid the revised wages as fixed in the said settlement, the 37 workers were not entitled to such revised wages by virtue of the said settlement dated 7/9.11.1988. But Sub-section (3) of Section 18 of the Act, 1947, quoted above, would show that an Award of a Tribunal which has become enforceable shall be binding on all parties to the dispute. Sub-section (4) of Section 10 of the Act, 1947, as discussed above, confers on a Tribunal the Jurisdiction to adjudicate the points of dispute specified in the order of Reference and matters incidental thereto. The points of dispute specified in the order of Reference to the Tribunal in this case were whether the claim of wages of 37 workers with effect from 1.8.1988 to 31.10.1989 at par with direct payment system workers of the FCI was justified and, if so, what relief the workers concerned were entitled to? The case of the Management of the FCI, the petitioners, was that the direct payment system workers of the FCI were entitled to wages as revised under the settlement dated 7/9.11.1988 and the case of the workmen in their written statement, as discussed above, was that the 37 workers working at Hapania Depot were also entitled to same wages as revised under the settlement dated 7/9,11.1988 applicable to other workers of the FCI. The Tribunal was therefore within its jurisdiction to decide the dispute referred to it in the order of Reference as to whether the 37 workers working at Hapania Depot were entitled to wages for the period 1.8.1988 to 31.10.1989 at the revised rate fixed under the settlement dated 7/9.11.1988 for other workers. Such jurisdiction of the Tribunal was derived from subSection (4) of Section 10 of the Act, 1947, read with the order of Reference dated 27.10.1993 of the Central Government, and the Award made by the Tribunal in the Reference is binding on the employer by virtue of what is provide din Sub-section (3) of Section 18 of the Act, 1947, independent of the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 18 of the Act, 1947. The contention of Mr. Deb that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to extend the benefits of the settlement dated 7/9.11.1988 to the 37 workers who were not included under the said settlement is therefore misconceived in law.
13. For the foregoing reasons, I hold that this writ petition has no merit and, accordingly, I dismiss the same. The interim order passed by this court on 6.5.1999 hereby stands vacated. Considering however the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their respective costs.