Gujarat High Court
Bil vs Secretary on 29 October, 2010
Author: S.J.Mukhopadhaya
Bench: S.J. Mukhopadhaya
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/12869/2010 1/ 6 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 12869 of 2010
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE
=================================================
BIL
METAL INDUSTRIES LTD & another
Versus
SECRETARY
VADODARA KAMDAR UNION
=================================================
Appearance :
Mr.
Kunan Naik for M/S TRIVEDI &
GUPTA for Petitioners
MR RAJESH P MANKAD for Respondent [on
caveat]
=================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE
Date
: 29/10/2010
CAV
ORDER
(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE) 1 Petitioner-Company and its Director have filed this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction holding and declaring the impugned award dated 1st July 2010 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal No.1, Vadodara, in Reference [IT] No.39 of 2004 as unconstitutional, illegal, inequitable, violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, without jurisdiction and authority of law.
2 On 12th April 2004, an industrial dispute came to be raised by the workmen of the petitioner-company through the Union before the Labour Commissioner and, on failure of conciliation proceedings, the dispute was referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Vadodara, ['the Tribunal' for short], which was registered as Reference [IT] No.39 of 2004. The Union raised about 17 demands and filed its statement of claim at Exh.6 to which a written statement was filed by the Company at Exh.8. On 24th March 2006, the Tribunal partially allowed the demand of the Union to produce certain documents and the Company complied with the said order of the Industrial Tribunal. At a later stage, another such application was filed by the Union and a reply thereto was given by the Company and, thereafter, two employees were examined and cross-examined on behalf of the Union and one of the Directors of the Company also deposed before the Tribunal. Finally, after taking into consideration the nature of manufacturing activity of the Company of supplying spare-parts to automobile industries; strength of workers and duties discharged by them; the balance sheet of the Company; purchase of machineries, increase in production and turnover and wages paid to the administrative and technical staff and periodical increase, the Tribunal, by applying the principles and parameters of industry-cum-region as well as capacity to pay for determination and/or revision of wages, finally directed the Company to make ad-hoc payment to its permanent workers, as under:
[A] To make payment to each concerned worker of Rs.15,000/- for a period prior to 31.12.2008;
[B] W.e.f.
1.1.2009, an additional increment has been fixed as -
Rs.100/-
ad-hoc on basic Rs.50/-
fixed D.A. Rs.50/-
conveyance allowance [C] W.e.f.
1.1.2010, an additional increment has been fixed as-
Rs.150/-
ad-hoc on basic Rs.50/-
fixed D.A. Rs.50/-
medical allowance Further, it has also been directed that the workers would be entitled to claim fringe benefits on the aforestated directions No.(B) & [C] and the Union shall be paid cost of Rs.10,000/-.
The above award and directions of the Tribunal are under challenge in this writ petition.
3 Mr. Kunan Naik, learned counsel for the petitioners assailed the award of the Tribunal by contending that the impugned award passed by the Tribunal is illegal, unreasonable, unfair, unjustified and is not based on the settled principles and parameters to decide the issue, namely, industry-cum-region as well as capacity to pay wages to the workers. That, though the Tribunal has found that, on the aspect of industry-cum-regions, no evidence was produced on record, but, still the amount is awarded. That, the balance-sheet of the company reveals losses since number of years preceding the award and the Company is not able to pay even statutory duties like excise duty, sales-tax and a scheme is pending for re-structuring of finance before the competent Court. That, the Tribunal has ignored the vital aspects about deposition of various witnesses. That, the Tribunal has erred in relying upon the deposition of two witness of the Union and ignoring the deposition of one of the Directors of the Company about financial condition of the Company. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, when the Company during the financial year 2008-2009 incurred loss of Rs.3,32,43,45/-, the additional burden in terms of the award of Rs.18,93,598/- would result into closure of the Company and, ultimately, the workers will suffer. It is further contended that the Tribunal has failed to consider the law laid down by the Apex Court in various decisions as relied upon by the petitioners before the Tribunal and the award of the Tribunal is contrary to the material on record and, therefore, deserves to be quashed and set aside.
4 Learned counsel Shri Rajesh P Mankad appears on caveat and would submit that this writ petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and there appears to be no error of law much less of jurisdiction and, even on facts, the Tribunal has passed the award after appreciating the material on record of the case and, therefore, no interference is called for by this Court. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has considered that the last revision of pay given to the employees by way of compromise was before 12 years and, except periodical increase in dearness allowance, no other amount is increased under any head, by which, salary of administrative and technical staff had increased by 80%. According to the learned counsel for the Union, the Tribunal has rejected various demands of the employees and the reference is partially allowed by granting lump-sum ad-hoc amount of Rs.15,000/- for a period prior to 31st December 2008, while increase on basic, fixed DA and conveyance allowance is only Rs.100/-, Rs.50/- and Rs.50/- respectively with effect from 1st January 2009 and further ad-hoc increase on basic is Rs.150/- with effect from 1st January 2010 along with fixed DA and medical allowance of Rs.50/- each. Such ad-hoc increase in wages cannot be said to be in any manner disproportionate to the unprecedented price hike of commodities and, therefore, the present writ petition deserves to be rejected.
5 Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, we are unable to agree with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The Tribunal has properly analyzed the facts and material on record and, after considering the compromise arrived at between the parties and the last revision of wages which took place prior to 12 years, and the comparative enhancement of salary of administrative and technical staff to the extent of 80%, the Tribunal has held that the workers involved in the production and manufacturing activities who filed the statement of claim through the Union were deprived of such benefits. Besides, a close reading of the balance-sheet would reveal that the Company had shown profit in the years preceding to 2007-2008 and even the turn-over was also more than double. It is evident from the record that the Company purchased machineries worth Rs.1,65,00,000/- and no specific method of depreciation was followed. Further, even as per the minimum wages prevailing in the State of Gujarat, the Tribunal rejected various demands of the workers but granted ad-hoc lump-sum amount of Rs.15,000/- for the permanent workers for the period prior to 31st December 2008 and marginal increase in D.A., conveyance allowance and medical allowance for the year 2009-2010 onwards, by granting liberty to the workmen to raise fresh demand only after January 2011. On the facts and circumstances, in our view, the Tribunal has not erred in exercising jurisdiction while passing the order impugned coupled with the fact that even no error of law or facts appears on record which deserves any interference in exercise of powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, and the order passed by the Tribunal cannot be said to be in any manner contrary to the evidence on record.
5.1 Considering the overall facts and circumstance of the case, we find no substance in this petition and the petition is rejected summarily with no order as to costs.
[S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA, C.J.] [ANANT S. DAVE, J.] (swamy) Top