Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. vs Industrial Tribunal (C), Hyderabad And ... on 23 August, 1994
Equivalent citations: 1994(3)ALT542, (1995)ILLJ342AP
ORDER M.N. Rao, J.
1. This writ appeal by the Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Ramagundam, Division, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District, represented by its Deputy Chief Personnel Manager was filed against the order of a learned single Judge in W.P. No. 9712 of 1987 dated 23-3-1987 dismissing the petition challenging the legality of the common Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal (C), Hyderabad. In I.D. No. 6 of 1982 and I.D. No. 12 of 1982 dated 4-2-1985. The Central Government referred the following questions for adjudication of the Industrial Tribunal in I.D. No. 6 of 1982 :-
"Whether the Management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Limited is justified in not placing the Water Treatment Attendants working at 18 M. W. Power House, Ramagundam in Cat. V. as demanded by Andhra Pradesh Colliery Mazdoor Sangh, in their letter No. APOM/GDK/251/81 dated the 17th April, 1981. If not, to what relief are the workmen entitled?"
2. In I.D. No. 12 of 1982 the following questions were referred for adjudication of the Industrial Tribunal :-
"Whether the Management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Ramagundam Area, Division-II are justified :
1. in not granting Cat VI/C Grade to S/Sri K. Raja Reddy, G. Venkateswara Reddy, N. Jiranjanachary, V. Narasimaiah, N. Chandraiah, K. Gattaiah and J. S. R. Murthy, Switch Board Attendant in 18 M. W. Power House, Godavarikhani.
2. in nor granting, Cat. V to S/Sri B. Rajaiah, V. Shanker, Shaik Mastan, Abdul Lateef Plant Attendants and in not granting additional increments to those plant attendants who are getting less wages conveyor kalasis promoted to Cat. IV later.
3. in not granting Cat. V to S/Sri T. Lakshminarayana. R. Lingaraju, Jacob Bixalu, M. V. S. S. N. Murthy, Ambati Venkati, Auxiliary Attendants in 18 M. W. Power House, Godavarikhani.
4. in not granting Cat. VI to S/Sri S. Malleshwaraiah, Turner D. Lakshmanaswamy, Fitter v. Narayana Reddy, Ch. Ramulu, John Bosle, Fitters, Vamanamurthy and Sardharkhan, Electricians and B. Prasad and Mallareddy, Welders, in 18 M. W. Power House, Godavarikhani.
5. in not promoting Sri Bittu Malliah, Mason (V. Cat.) to VI Cat. Mason.
6. in not granting Cat. V to Sri Peddy Venkati, Carpenter.
7. in not promoting Sri N. Jaggamraju, General Mazdoor, 18 M. W. Power House Godavarikhani to the post of Painter Cat. V.
8. in not laying down proper job description and standard categorisation in respect of different categories of workmen working in 18 M. W. Power House at Godavarikhani.
9. in refusing to pay dust allowance to all workers working in 18 M. W. Power House, Godavarikhani and heat allowance/thermal allowance to the workers working at the boilers.
If not justified, to what relief the workmen are entitled."
3. Singareni Collieries Company Limited is a public sector Corporation owned by the Central and State Governments. The company employs over 1,27,000 workmen in various mines and establishments. Consequent to the nationalisation of Coal Industry, an organisation at the all India level known as Coal India Limited came to be established and this organisation monitors and supervises the management of all the coal establishments. In respect of the entire coal industry in the country the interests of the workers are represented by the federation of employees of coal industry. So far five agreements have been concluded in respect of the wages governing the workers. The first agreement was concluded on 1-1-1975 and it was in force till 31-7-1978. The second agreement was enforced from 1-1-1979 to 31-12-1982 and thereafter three more agreements have been concluded, with which we are not concerned in this writ appeal. Pursuant to the National Coal Wage Agreement, the individual settlements were concluded between the unions working in various establishment and their respective managements.
4. Four unions - (1) Singareni Collieries Worker's Union (2) Tandur Coal Mines Labour Union (3) Singareni Collieries Employees Union and (4) A. P. Colliery Mazdoor Sangh - served strike notices on the management making certain demands. The controversy had led to an industrial dispute and in the course of the conciliation proceedings a settlement was reached between the parties on 29-1-1981 at Hyderabad, under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short "the Act"). The management was represented by three General Managers and one Officiating Senior Personnel Officer and on behalf of the four unions two representatives of each Union had signed the agreement. The agreement is a comprehensive one and it consists of 43 causes. Clauses 18 and 21 of the agreement are in the following terms :-
"18. CSP Tradesmen Promotion Police :- The present cadre scheme/promotion policy in respect of tradesmen shall remain intact pending finalisation of the report of the Sub-Committee on promotion policies. The Assistant Foremen of CSP belonging to tradesmen category now in Grade-C who have completed 5 years service as on 1-4-80 will be placed in Grade-B with effect from 1-4-1980, on the basis of their assessment report regarding work, conduct and attendance and they will be designated as Charge-hands. Others from Clerical cadre in Gr. I and completed 5 years of service in Gr. I as on 1-4-1980 will be placed in Special Grade (Clerical) on the basis of assessment reports of their work and conduct and they continue to be designated as Assistant Foremen".
"21. Power Houses :
(a) The base exchange water softening and turbine attendants now in Cat. II will be placed in Cat. IV with effect from 1-4-1980.
(b) Ash Mazdoors at Power Houses at Kothagudem and Bellampalli now in Cat. I will be placed in Cat. II with effect from 1-4-1980."
5. The agreement reiterates the resolve of both the parties to have industrial peace which alone will contribute to increased production. The four unions agreed to abide by what is stipulated in 8 paragraph on pages 6 and 7 of the agreement which relate to their obligation to extend co-operation to the management in maintaining industrial peace. The concluding part of the agreement is in the following terms :-
"It is hereby agreed that this settlement shall be in operation during the tenure of present wage agreement; during which period, no demands involving any monetary commitment will be entertained by the management.
This is in full and final settlement of all the demands and the demands not referred to shall be deemed to have been withdrawn.
The parties will send the implementation reports to the regional Labour Commissioner (Central) on or before 1st May, 1981".
6. Some time after the aforesaid agreement was concluded, a fresh demand was raised in August 1981 in respect of certain employees of Ramagundam 18 M. W. Power Station, a constituent of Singareni Colliers. The A. P. Colliery Mazdoor Sangh served a notice on the management of Ramagundam Power House on 21-8-1981. The Union also wrote a letter on 12-9-1981 to the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) speaking his intervention in the matter. The Officer initiated conciliation proceedings on the demands and submitted his report to the Government on 13-1-1982. Thereafter the disputes were referred to the Industrial Tribunal as stated supra. Before the Industrial Tribunal the plea raised by the appellant/management of the Singareni Collieries was that during he tenure of the settlement under Section 12(3) of the Act dated 29-1-1981 no demand involving financial commitments could be raised by the Unions and all employees, whether or not they are members of the Unions, or signatories to the agreement, and they are precluded from raising any further demands which entail, for their implementation, financial consequences. The management also strongly pleaded that the sanctity of the settlement could not be infringed in a manner rendering industrial peace illusory. On the other hand, the Union, the second respondent in the Writ Appeal contended before the Industrial Tribunal that despite the settlement dated 29-1-1981 the management had entered into three further agreements with the workers on 20-8-1982, 29-8-1981 and 15-8-1981 under Section 12 (3) of the Act conceding certain demands which involved financial commitments and, therefore, the pleas taken by the management that the settlement dated 29-1-1981 would operate as a bar was untenable.
7. Evidence was adduced before the Industrial Tribunal on both sides as to the merits of the claims. After considering the evidence, the Tribunal expressed the opinion that the settlement dated 29-1-1981 would not constitute a bar for the Union to espouse individual grievances of the workers since the grievances raised by the workers fell outside the purview of the settlement dated 29-1-1981. The Tribunal in that view examined the evidence placed before it and accepted the pleas of the workmen and passed a common Award.
8. Challenging the Award of the Industrial Tribunal the appellant herein filed W.P. No. 9712 of 1985 in this Court, which ended in dismissal. The learned Single Judge has expressed the view that the settlement dated 29-1-1981 did not cover the cases of promotion of employees whose cause the second respondent-Union has espoused before the Industrial Tribunal. The learned single Judge, after considering the courses of the settlement, concluded :-
"...... A settlement will certainly be deemed to be a full and final settlement in regard to all the demands which have been considered in the settlement. But the demands which have not been considered and which have never been the subject-matter of the terms of the settlement cannot be deemed to have been foreclosed by the terms of the settlement".
In that view although agreeing with the contention raised by the management that a settlement concluded under Section 12(3) of the Act binds the workers, who are not members of the Union that entered into agreement, by virtue of the operation of Section 18(3) of the Act, the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition taking the view that question raised and decided by the Tribunal fell outside the purview of the settlement. The present writ appeal was, therefore, bought questioning the view taken by the learned single Judge.
9. It is not in dispute that the settlement dated 29-1-1981 was concluded under Section 12(3) of the Act. Section 18(3) of the Act, inter alia, says that a settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceeding shall be binding on all parties to the industrial dispute and if a party to the settlement its a Union consisting of workmen, all the persons employed in the establishment or part of the establishment to which the dispute relates and all persons who subsequently became employees in the establishment are bound by the settlement - vide 18(3)(a) and (d). Reviewing the relevant case law on this aspect a learned single Judge of this court K. Ramaswamy, J. (as he then was) in A.S.C. Machilipatnam v. L. C. Guntur & Ors. 1990 (1) LLJ 259, held :-
"In view of the settled legal position, the only conclusion that could be deduced is that when there is a dispute sponsored by a Union and the dispute was concerning all the employees in the establishment - be they members of the Union or the rival Union and whether they are parties to the agreement or not, it binds all the workmen and, therefore, the parties are bound by the settlement arrived at under Section 12(3) read with Section 18(3) of the Act".
10. The writ appeal against the aforesaid judgment was dismissed as withdrawn.
11. Sri K. Srinivasamurthy, learned Counsel for the appellant-management contends that in view of the settled legal position it was not open to the second respondent-Union to expose the causes of the workers even if the demands are put in the form of individual grievances of the workmen. The concluding part of the settlement specifically says that no demands involving any monetary commitments will be entertained by the management. In as much as the second respondent-Union, a part to the settlement, had accepted the right of the management not to entertain any demand involving any monetary commitment and as the settlement was in full and final settlement of all the demands and the demands not referred to shall be deemed to have been withdrawn, the Industrial Tribunal fell into an error in passing the Award and the view taken by the learned single Judge that the demands raised are only individual demands and, therefore, outside the purview of the settlement, is clearly unsustainable in law.
12. The learned Counsel for the second respondent-Upon contends that the settlement does not bar individual workmen from approaching the Unions with respect to the injustice done to them and the espousal of their demands by the unions is perfectly justified if the grievances are outside the purview of the settlement. According to the learned Counsel for the union the demands in question being individual grievances of the workers clearly fell outside the purview of the settlement.
13. The question referred for adjudication to the Tribunal by the Central Government in I.D. No. 6 of 1982 and I.D. No. 12 of 1982, in our opinion, are clearly covered by the settlement dated 29-1-1981. The demands raised by the workers although appear to be individual grievances, are in fact matters falling within the ambit of promotion policy which was specifically covered by Clause 18 of the settlement. As already extracted supra Clause 18 speaks of C.S.P. Tradesmen promotion policy. It contemplates that the present cadre scheme/promotion policy in respect of tradesmen shall remain intact pending finalisation of the report of the sub-committee on promotion policies. The meaning of this obviously is that the promotion policy cannot be touched until and unless the report of the sub-committee is finalised. It is not the case of the Union that such a report has been finalised and in the implementation of such a report injustice was meted out to any workman. The stand taken by the Union before the Industrial Tribunal as summed-up by the learned Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal is :-
"According to the Union, the Management has to fix appropriate job description and categorisation of posts. Without doing the same, the management was extracting highly skilled and sophisticated work from the workmen by passing lesser wages and exploiting them".
14. Thus plea was raised by the Unions in order to settle the cases of the individual workmen for promotion to next category. Category IV workers are those earning daily wages and the next stage to which they could aspire was Category 'C' which entitles them monthly wages. The grievances ventilated before the Industrial Tribunal pertained to claims for absorption of daily wage earners either against Category 'C' posts - monthly wages - and for promotion from Category V to Category VI. Clause 18 clearly forbids espousal of such type of Grievances since they inevitably entail financial commitments. Even in respect of the demand not covered by the settlement, it is not open to any union to make any demand involving monetary commitment on the part of the management, by virtue of the operative portion of the settlement dated 29-1-1981. By that settlement the Unions had agreed that all their demands were settled fully and finally and the demands not referred to shall be deemed to have been withdraw. Therefore during the currency of the settlement dated 29-1-1981 it was not open to the Unions to raise any demand involving any monetary commitment.
15. The learned single Judge has obviously misconstrued the scope of the settlement by observing :-
"The words relating to the monetary commitment on behalf of the management cannot be stretched to such an extent at to say that the management is absolved for ever of undertaking any financial obligation for the benefit of the workmen in view of the settlement arrived at between the management and the workmen on 29-1-1981".
16. The settlement does not forever, absolve the management of financial obligations. The management is absolved of the financial obligations only for the period during which the settlement is in operation. The period of the currency of the settlement came to an end, it is admitted by both sides, on 31-12-1982. Therefore, the constraints on raising any demands involving any financial commitments were confined to the period between 29-1-1981, the date of settlement and 31-12-1982 when the settlement expired. Because of this misconception as to the currency of the settlement the learned single Judge came to the conclusion that the management cannot seek protection under the settlement to evade its responsibilities forever. The demands in question were raised, admittedly, during the currency of the settlement which undoubtedly involved financial commitments on the part of the management. The mere fact that in some of the cases the management agreed to enter into agreements with workmen in order to confer financial benefits on certain categories of employees cannot be a ground for the second respondent-Union to contend that the same treatment should have been extended to the present workmen also. The liberty of the management in appropriate cases to extend financial benefits to any category of workmen, even during the period of the currency of the settlement cannot be approximated to an obligation on its part to concede every demands raised by the workmen although the same is forbidden by the settlement.
17. For the above reasons, the writ appeal is allowed and the judgment of the learned single Judge is set aside and W.P. No. 9712 of 1985 dated 23-3-1987 is allowed. The common Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal in I.D. No. 6 of 1982 and I.D. No. 12 of 1982 is set aside.
18. By virtue of an order passed by a Division Bench of this Court on 23-4-1987, the management had implemented the Award. We are told that the workmen are now working in higher cadres pursuant to the common award passed by the Industrial Tribunal. Since they have been holding higher posts for nearly 7 1/2 years, we think it is inequitable to disturb them from their present posts. We, therefore, direct the appellant not to revert the workmen from their present posts. However, we make it clear that the workmen in question are not entitled to higher wages for the period prior to 23-4-1987. No costs.