Delhi District Court
Workmen Workmen vs M/S Ashok Airport Restaurant ... on 16 January, 2010
1
IN THE COURT OF SH BABU LAL: POIT-II,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
I.D.25/07
Workmen Workmen
Represented by All India Paryatan
Jan Mazdoor Sabha represented
by Sh. S.S. Upadhyay now merged with
All India ITDC Mazdoor Janta Union,
166, Partap Nagar, opposite Mayur Vihar
Phase-I, Pocket IV, Delhi 91.
Versus
M/s Ashok Airport Restaurant Management
A unit of ITDC, IGI Airport
Terminal II, New Delhi 37.
Date of institution 06.03.07
Arguments heard on 06.01.10
Date of award 16.01.10
AWARD
1.Workmen through their union, namely, All India Paryatan Jan Mazdoor Union, has raised an industrial dispute and on failure of conciliation proceedings, GNCT of Delhi referred the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication in following terms of reference :-
'' Whether the demand of restoration of the transport facility to the employees working at Ashok Airport Restaurant is legal and / or justified and if so, what directions are necessary in this respect ?''
2. in the statement of claim, it is alleged that workmen working with Management had been getting 2 transport facility ( i.e. Coach facility to operational employees and all route DTC pass to back office employees) for the last 15-16 years and it was part and parcel of their service conditions and also that all other agencies functioning at Airport have been providing transport facility to its employees. Management headed by General Manager Sh. Sudhir Sibal is alleged to have withdrawn transport facility w.e.f. May, 2002 without giving any notice to the workmen. It is alleged that this action of the Management was illegal and unjustified and violative of section 9A of Industrial Dispute Act. Union functioning at Management as well as workers allegedly approached the Management for redressal of their grievances but it did not bother to resolve the same. It is alleged that union of the workmen in its working committee meeting held on 21.7.04 authorized Sh. S.S. Upadhyay to take up matter with appropriate authority. A demand/ legal notice dated 24.7.04 was allegedly sent to General Manager of the Management. It is alleged that Management neither restored the transport facility to the workmen nor did it bother to give reply to the legal notice of the Union. It is prayed that transport facility may be ordered to be restored to the workmen w.e.f. 1.5.02.
3. In the WS, case of the Management is that employees have no vested right to claim transport facility 3 inasmuch it was neither term or condition of appointment letter nor are there any rules of the Management which provide for such a facility. However, it has not been disputed that earlier Management had been providing transport facility to its employees but it is added that it was not part and parcel of their service. It is alleged that Management was undergoing financial crunch in the year 2002, therefore, on instructions from Headquarters to manage the wages of unit staff themselves and just to minimise the expenditure, coach facility and DTC passes were withdrawn as staff was already getting fixed conveyance regularly. It is alleged that transport facility ( i.e. Coach facility) was commenced by the management when there was lack of public transport. It is alleged that now public transport has increased manifold and most of staff had started coming to Management on their own and only 4-5 employees were coming by coach, employees were already getting conveyance regularly, it was stopped to minimise financial burden. It is alleged that action of the Management in stopping of transport facility was not violative of provisions of Industrial Dispute Act.
4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed :-
(1) Whether demand of workmen for restoration of 4 transport facility to employees of the Management is legal and/ or justified and if so to what relief are they entitled ?
(2) As per terms of reference.
5. In order to their case, workmen have filed affidavit of WW--1 Subhash Juneja and WW--2 Sh. S.S. Upadhyay. On the other hand, Management has filed affidavit of Sh. R.L.Ramanand as MW--1.
6. I have heard AR for the parties have carefully gone through record of the case as also written submissions filed by the parties. My issuewise findings are as under:-
7. Findings on issue Nos 1 & 2 Issue No 1 is whether demand of workmen for restoration of transport facility to employees of the Management is legal and/ or justified and if so to what relief are they entitled. Issue No 2 is as per terms of reference. Terms of reference are whether the demand of restoration of the transport facility to the employees working at Ashok Airport Restaurant is legal and / or justified and if so, what directions are necessary in this respect. In both the issues, question for decision would arise about justification of transport facility. If the same is part of conditions of employment, there would be justification or its restoration. On the other hand, if such facility was not part of conditions of employment, its restoration would not be justified. Therefore, both the 5 issues shall be decided together.
8. WW--1 Sh. Subhash Juneja in his affidavit has deposed that he had worked with the Management since 1986 to December, 2008 as a clerk. It is deposed that during his service period, he was paid transport subsidy in the form of DTC bus pass. According to him, Management arbitrarily and illegally stopped the said facility to its employees w.e.f. 1.5.02 without giving any prior notice. It is deposed that transport facility was part of service condition. Union of the workmen held meeting of working committee on 21.7.04 where issue was discussed and it was resolved to raise industrial dispute and demand notice was served on the Management. Resolution passed by the union in this regard has been proved as Ex WW1/1 and demand notice has been proved as Ex WW1/2. Documents granting transport facility to the workmen have been proved as Ex WW1/3 to 18. It is deposed that workmen are entitled to transport facility inasmuch they are bound to perform odd hours duty in shifts when transport is not available. In his cross examination, he has admitted that he had been getting transport subsidy since 1997 onwards. He has also admitted that whenever, he had to go out for official work, he used to get conveyance allowance.
9. WW--2 Sh. S.S. Upadhyay has also deposed that 6 workers of the Management approached his union, meeting of working committee was held and it was resolved to raise industrial dispute. Demand notice is deposed to have been sent to the Management in this regard. It is deposed that transport facility was part and parcel of service condition of the workmen. In his cross examination, he has admitted that there was no agreement between the Union and the Management to provide transport facility or that there is no such provision in the standing order of the Management with regard to providing transport facility to its employees.
10. WW--2 Sh. S.S.Upadhyay has also filed additional affidavit in which he has proved memo of settlement executed between ITDC Ltd and India Tourism Development Corporation Ltd, All India ITDC Workers Federation ( INTUC), Acting Committee of Trade Unions in ITDC, JAC ( AITUC & CITU), ITDC Trade Unions Federations ( HMS and independent Unions in various units of ITDC/ Corporate Office) as Ex WW2/5. This settlement was executed on 15.6.2000 but it was made effective retrospectively w.e.f. 1.1.1997. In this settlement, word ''transport subsidy'' @ Rs 120 per month was to be paid from the date of settlement.
11. MW--1 Sh. R.L.Ramanand in his affidavit has testified that employees have no vested right to claim 7 transport facility inasmuch it was neither term or condition of appointment letter nor are there any rules of the Management for such a facility. It is deposed that employees have been getting fixed transport allowance per month as per rules. It is deposed that there is no agreement with the Union which provides for transport facility nor there is any standing order of the Management in this regard. It is deposed that transport facility was being provided to the employees when public transport was not good. It is deposed that public transport system has increased manifold. It is deposed that workmen are not entitled for any relief.
12. It has been argued by AR for the workman that workers of Ashok Airport Restaurant working in shift duty were being provided transport facility to attend to their duties and going to their houses from work place. It is also argued that those who perform office duty were provided DTC passes and this practice was being followed since1986 on the ground that there was no public transport facility at Ashok Airport Restaurant. It is also argued that Management witness has confirmed that workers working at the restaurant were provided free food facility though there was no agreement to this effect. It is argued that as per clause 14 of the agreement Ex WW2/5 dated 15.6.2000 all the workers of ITDC were entitled for 8 transport subsidy of Rs. 120 per month whereas MW--1 has deposed that there was no agreement in this regard. It is deposed that transport facility was being given to all the workers of ITDC since 1987 onwards but same has been stopped in 2000, therefore, stoppage of transport facility by the Management is illegal and unjustified.
13. On the other hand, in the written submissions filed on behalf of Management, it is argued that as per service conditions of the workmen, they have no vested right to claim transport facility nor is there any provision for transport facility as terms and conditions of employment. It is argued that employees have to perform duty in shift aggregating 48 hours in a week as per operational requirement and in fixing their duty, convenience of the workman is kept in mind. It is argued that provisions for transport facility to the employees of Management was not part and parcel of their service conditions. It is argued that transport facility was made available to the workmen in the form of coach facility for coming to and fro but later on employees started coming by their own coaches/ vehicles, therefore, coach facility became uneconomical. It is argued that since workers were getting fixed transport allowance per month as per rules, coach facility had been withdrawn. It is argued that staff which finish their duty late night at 9.30 p.m. are 9 provided pre-paid taxi service upto Dhaula Kuan, central place for going to any place in Delhi. It is argued that employees are getting conveyance allowance per month as part of their salary, therefore, they are not entitled to transport facility.
14. WW--1 Sh. Subhash Juneja, employee of the Management in his cross examination has specifically stated that conveyance allowance was being paid to him. He has also admitted that he was getting transport subsidy since 1997 onwards. He has also admitted that as and when he used to go outside Ashok Airport Restaurant, he got the conveyance allowance.
15. WW--2 Sh. S.S. Upadhay in his cross examination dated 16.9.09,has admitted that there was no agreement between the Union and the Management to provide transport facility or there is such provision in the standing order of the Management with regard to providing transport facility to its employees.
16. Settlement executed between management and ITDC workers Union has been proved as Ex WW2/5. Clause 14 pertaining to transport subsidy provides '' Non executive employees on I.D.A. pattern shall be paid transport subsidy of Rs. 120/- per month from the date of settlement. All other terms and conditions regulating payment of transport subsidy remain unchanged''. 10
17. In this settlement, there is no clause which provide that Management was under obligation to provide coach facility or transport facility separately and in addition to transport subsidy of Rs. 120 per month. If at all Management had been providing coach facility, it was to secure punctuality of its employees. However, it stands proved that providing transport facility was not terms of employment. No rules and regulations has been placed on record under which workmen are entitled for transport facility over and above transport subsidy. No settlement has been placed on record on the basis of which, it could be said that provision for coach facility was condition of employment of workmen. Since workers and Management both are bound to honour Ex WW2/5 and in the absence of any evidence that providing of transport facility was terms of employment, their claim for transport facility in addition to transport subsidy is not justified. They have been getting transport subsidy to the tune of Rs. 120 per month apart from getting conveyance allowance if they are to go to perform duty outside office. In my considered opinion, they are not entitled to transport facility as claimed. I accordingly hold that their demand for restoration of transport facility is neither legal nor justified nor they are entitled for any relief. These issues are accordingly decided.
11
18. Relief :- In view of my findings on issue Nos 1 & 2, I hold that demand of restoration of transport facility to employees working at Management is neither legal nor justified nor are they entitled for any relief. Reference is answered in these terms. Award is accordingly passed. Same be sent to GNCT of Delhi for publication. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open court on 16.01.10 (BABU LAL)
Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-II Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
12 I.D. No 25/07 16.01.10 Present None for the parties
Vide separate award, I have held that demand of restoration of transport facility to employees working at Management is neither legal nor justified nor are they entitled for any relief. Reference is answered in these terms. Award is accordingly passed. Same be sent to GNCT of Delhi for publication. File be consigned to record room.
( BABU LAL) POIT-II/KKD COURTS DELHI/16.01.10