Kerala High Court
K.V.Cherian vs Hmt Ltd on 19 July, 1995
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
THURSDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017/27TH MAGHA, 1938
WP(C).No. 26238 of 2014 (D)
----------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-------------
1. K.V.CHERIAN
(EX.T.NO.4117, WORKER SUPERVISOR, HMT IV)
KANIYADAN HOUSE, RAYAMANGALAM P.O.,
KURUPPAMPADY(VIA), ERNAKULAM.
2. P.SADASIVAN PILLAI,
(EX.T.NO.4594, ASSISTANT, HMT IV),
VADAKKETHARAYIL HOUSE, CHERUKOLE P.O.,
KOZHENCHERY, PIN-689 650.
3. K.G.HARIDASAN,
(EX.T.NO.4090, WORKER SUPERVISOR, HMT IV),
KUZHIKKATTU HOUSE, TKS PURAM, KODUNGALLUR P.O.,
PIN-680 664, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
4. K.K.THILAKAN,
(EX.T.NO.3694, WORKER SUPERVISOR, HMT IV),
KALACHIRA HOUSE, LOKAMALESWARAM,
KODUNGALLUR P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 664.
5. V.R.SUKUMARAN,
(V.R.SUKUMARAN, (EX.T.NO.4067, WORKER SUPERVISOR,
HMT IV), VADAKKEDATH HOUSE, PUTHUVYPU P.O.,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682 508.
6. ABRAHAM T.T.,
(EX.T.4824, STORE KEEPER, HMT IV),
THUNDIYIL HOUSE, MANNIRAM P.O., RANNI,
PATHANAMTHITTA-689 672.
7. GEORGE K.J.,
(EX.T.NO.4328, SERVICE ASST, HMT IV),
KUZHINJALIKUNNEL HOUSE, ELLAKKAL P.O.,
(VIA) CHITHIRAPURAM, 685 565, IDUKKI DISTRICT.
8. O.J.FELIX,
(EX.T.NO.4061, TURNER, HMT IV),
ODATHUMPARAMBIL HOUSE, KANGARAPADY,
VADACODE P.O., 682 021, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
msv/
-2-
-2-
WP(C).No. 26238 of 2014 (D)
----------------------------
9. CHANDRAN M.K.,
(EX.T.NO.3713, WORKER SUPERVISOR, HMT IV),
'MADHAVAM', MANTHIYIL HOUSE, ATHANI P.O.,
PIN-683 585, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
10. XAVIER M.V.,
(EX.T.NO.3715, WORKER SUPERVISOR, HMT IV),
MAKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, OPP. LOURDE MATHA CHURCH,
ELAMAKKARA P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
11. PAUL M.J.,
(EX.T.NO.3811, WORKER SUPERVISOR, HMT IV),
MANAYATH HOUSE, 'GERIZIM', INDIRA ROAD,
PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI-682 025.
12. JOSEPH TERENCE LUIZ,
(EX.T.NO.3540, WORKER SUPERVISOR, HMT IV),
CHOOLAKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KORAMBILLY ROAD,
HMT COLONY P.O., PIN-683 503, ERNAKULAM.
13. DIVAKARAN M.N.,
(EX.T.NO.4428, WORKER SUPERVISOR, HMT IV),
'SIVALAYAM', HMT COLONY P.O., PIN-683 503,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
14. CHRYSOSTOM D' ALMEIDA,
(EX.T.NO.3592, WORKER SUPERVISOR, HMT IV),
RODENSA ENCLAVE, POPULAR ROAD, VADUTHALA P.O.,
COCHIN-682 023.
15. NANDAKUMARAN P.S.,
(EX.T.NO.4222, WORKER SUPERVISOR, HMT IV),
PARARATH HOUSE, WEST GOVT. HS SCHOOL,
SRINGAPURAM, KODUNGALLUR,
PIN-680 664, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
16. GOPALAN K.,
(EX.T.NO.4375, MACHINIST, HMT IV),
WS 6/4, HMT QUARTERS, HMT COLONY P.O.,
KALAMASSERY. PIN-683 503.
17. K.RAJENDRAN NAIR,
(EX.T.NO.4826, SECURITY PERSONNEL, HMT IV),
REKHA BHAVAN, MALAMEKARA, AROOR P.O.,
PIN-691 523, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.
18. K.L.PARAMESWARAN,
(EX.T.NO.5004, SECURITY GUARD, HMT IV),
GCDA (OLD), III/14, KUNCHATTU KARA,
KAVARPPADINADA, EDATHALA P.O., ALUVA.
Msv/
-3-
-3-
WP(C).No. 26238 of 2014 (D)
----------------------------
19. V.V.KUNJU MUHAMMED,
(EX.T.NO.3486, SHOT BLASTER, HMT IV),
VELUTHEDATH HOUSE, KAIPADAMUGAL,
VADACODE P.O., PIN-682 021.
20. N.A.RAVI,
(EX.T.NO.4133, SLINGER, HMT IV),
NIKATHITHARA HOUSE, NAYARAMBALAM P.O.,
MANATTUPARAMBU EAST, PIN-682 509,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.ANTONY M. AMBAT
DR.SEBASTIAN CHAMPAPPILLY
DR.ABRAHAM P.MEACHINKARA
SRI.P.A.SAINUDEEN
SRI.GEORGE CLEETUS
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. HMT LTD.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR,
HMT BHAVAN, 59, BELLARY ROAD, BENGALURU-560 032.
2. THE GENERAL MANAGER,
HMT LTD., HMT COLONY P.O.,
KALAMASSERY - 683 503.
3. UNION OF INDIA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF INDUSTRY, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
ENTERPRISES (WC) 14, CGO COMPLEX,
LODI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110 003.
R1 & R2 BY ADVS. SRI.SAJI VARGHESE
SMT.MARIAM MATHAI
R3 BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 08-02-2017 ALONG WITH WPC. 26239/2014 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON 16-02-2017, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
msv/
WP(C).No. 26238 of 2014 (D)
----------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
P1- (TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER ISSUED BY DPE
DATED 19.7.1995)
P2- (TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER NO.25/95 DATED 25.10.1995
ISSUED BY HMT LTD.)
P3- (TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DATED 25.6.14 BETWEEN THE
WORKMEN AND MANAGEMENT OF HMT LTD.)
P4- TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATIONS DATED 29.9.2014 GIVEN BY
THE 1ST PETITIONER TO R1 & R2)
P4(A)- TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATIONS DATED 29.9.2014 GIVEN BY
THE 2ND PETITIONER TO R1 & R2)
P4(B)- TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATIONS DATED 29.9.2014 GIVEN BY
THE 3RD PETITIONER TO R1 & R2)
P4(C)- TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATIONS DATED 29.9.2014 GIVEN BY
THE 4TH PETITIONER TO R1 & R2)
P4(D)- TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATIONS DATED 29.9.2014 GIVEN BY
THE 5TH PETITIONER TO R1 & R2)
P4(E)- TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATIONS DATED 29.9.2014 GIVEN BY
THE 6TH PETITIONER TO R1 & R2)
P4(F)- TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATIONS DATED 29.9.2014 GIVEN BY
THE 7TH PETITIONER TO R1 & R2)
P4(G)- TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATIONS DATED 29.9.2014 GIVEN BY
THE 8TH PETITIONER TO R1 & R2)
P4(H)- TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATIONS DATED 29.9.2014 GIVEN BY
THE 9TH PETITIONER TO R1 & R2)
P4(I)- TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATIONS DATED 29.9.2014 GIVEN BY
THE 10TH PETITIONER TO R1 & R2)
P4(J)- TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATIONS DATED 29.9.2014 GIVEN BY
THE 11TH PETITIONER TO R1 & R2)
P4(K)- TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATIONS DATED 29.9.2014 GIVEN BY
THE 12TH PETITIONER TO R1 & R2)
msv/
-2-
-2-
WP(C).No. 26238 of 2014 (D)
----------------------------
P4(L)- TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATIONS DATED 29.9.2014 GIVEN BY
THE 13TH PETITIONER TO R1 & R2)
P4(M)- TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATIONS DATED 29.9.2014 GIVEN BY
THE 14TH PETITIONER TO R1 & R2)
P4(N)- TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATIONS DATED 29.9.2014 GIVEN BY
THE 15TH PETITIONER TO R1 & R2)
P4(O)- TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATIONS DATED 29.9.2014 GIVEN BY
THE 16TH PETITIONER TO R1 & R2)
P4(P)- TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATIONS DATED 29.9.2014 GIVEN BY
THE 17TH PETITIONER TO R1 & R2)
P4(Q)- TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATIONS DATED 29.9.2014 GIVEN BY
THE 18TH PETITIONER TO R1 & R2)
P4(R)- TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATIONS DATED 29.9.2014 GIVEN BY
THE 19TH PETITIONER TO R1 & R2)
P4(S)- TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATIONS DATED 29.9.2014 GIVEN BY
THE 20TH PETITIONER TO R1 & R2)
P5- (TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 7.8.2002 O.P.NO.9533 OF
2002)
P6- (TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 7.8.2002 IN O.P.NO.12476
OF 1999)
P7- (TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A.NO.1/2003 DTD. 17.11.2003
OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA)
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
EXT.R2(a): TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER NO.25/95 DTD.25.10.1995.
EXT.R2(b): TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DTD.23.4.1995 ENTERED INTO
BETWEEN THE MANAGEMENT COMPANY AND THE UNIONS.
//TRUE COPY//
P.S.TO JUDGE
Msv/
ANU SIVARAMAN, J.
-----------------------------------------------
W.P(C).Nos. 26238, 26239 & 28507 of 2014
&
W.P(C).No.29442 of 2016
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 16th February, 2017
JUDGMENT
These writ petitions are filed by retired employees of the HMT Limited seeking benefits of revision of pay, which was effected in the Company with effect from 1.1.1997. The petitioners contend that they had retired from service after 1.1.1997. The parties and documents are being referred to in this judgment as in W.P(C).No.26238 of 2014 for the sake of convenience and clarity.
2. Exhibit P3 is the settlement between the workmen and the management of the 1st respondent HMT Limited on pay revision which is dated 25.6.2014. It is submitted that the petitioners had preferred Exhibit P4 series of representations seeking release of arrears of pay revision due to them. It is submitted that the State Government had made available huge amounts for the payment of arrears. However, it is submitted that relying on clause 17.1 of Exhibit P3, which provides that arrears of wage revision from 1.1.1997 to the date of implementation will be discussed between the workmen and WP(C).26238/14 & connected cases 2 the management, the arrears due to the petitioners have been denied to them. It is further stated that since they are retired employees, no dispute would be entertained by the Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court at their instance on the ground that they are not workmen.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Company.
4. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that arrears of pay revision and the retirement benefits due thereon are rights of the employees and cannot be denied to them. It is stated that the settlement entered into between the Company and the workmen, after the petitioners had retired from service, had failed to take note of their demand and rights and was therefore open to challenge at their instance. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies on the decisions of the Apex Court and of this Court to contend that financial constraints cannot be pleaded as a ground for denying due benefits to the employees.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the Company, on the other hand, submits that conciliation settlements are binding on all workmen in the establishment and constitute a package deal and cannot be analysed in bits and pieces. It is stated that WP(C).26238/14 & connected cases 3 once a settlement is signed, individual workmen cannot challenge the same, since their rights are also taken note of at the instance of the Union while signing the settlement. It is further stated that the financial condition of the Company is extremely precarious and that there was no means by which the Company could have paid arrears for the period from 1.1.1997 to 31.12.2006. It is stated that if the financial situation of the Company improves and it becomes possible, the arrears will be disbursed at a later date. It is further submitted that as on 31.3.2006, the accumulated loss of the Company amounts to Rs.1,256.42 crores. It is further stated that the contention of the retired employees being that the settlement itself did not cover them, they will not be eligible for the revision as well, since they were not in service as on the date of Exhibit P3. It is stated that the pay revision has been implemented in relaxation of the Department of Public Enterprises guidelines and no further arrears can be paid other than in terms of what is stated in Exhibit P3.
6. I have considered the contentions advanced on either side. The issue to be decided in these cases is with regard to the right of retired employees of respondents 1 and 2 to the benefits of pay revision arrears for the period from 1.1.1997 till WP(C).26238/14 & connected cases 4 the date of their retirement. It is an admitted fact that the Company was suffering accumulated loss and has been in financial doldrums. The pay revisions, therefore, could not be implemented in the Company in time. However, considering the rights of the employees, a decision was taken to relax the guidelines and to effect a pay revision prospectively in 2014. Exhibit P3 is a settlement that implements the pay revision in the Company. It is clear from a reading thereof that though the pay revision is intended to operate from 1.1.1997, no arrears for prior periods are provided in the same. This apparently is because of the financial constraints faced by the Company. The settlement itself is intended to be the prospective in operation. It is only on account of this settlement that the petitioners, who were employees in the Company, could have any claim for revision. The settlement being one entered into between the management and the labour unions of the Company, I am of the opinion that it is not a document, which would be open to challenge at the instance of individual workmen before this Court. The financial constraints of the Company is also a relevant factor for deciding the issue of payment of arrears to employees, who had already retired from service. This is an aspect which apparently had been considered by the WP(C).26238/14 & connected cases 5 management as well as the workmen while Exhibit P3 was being drafted.
In the above view of the matter, I do not think that the challenge raised by the petitioners to Exhibit P3 settlement is sustainable. However, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, I am of the view that the Government of India should consider the plight of the retired workers of the 2nd respondent Company and see whether any relief can be extended to them, since they had worked for long years under the 1st respondent. In the above view of the matter, the 3rd respondent Union of India is directed to take up, consider and pass reasoned orders on Exhibit P4 or further representations to be preferred by the petitioners, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The writ petitions are disposed of as above.
ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE vgs