Karnataka High Court
The Secretary Mypower Mazdoor Welfare ... vs The Management Of Karnataka Power ... on 5 February, 2016
Author: A.S.Bopanna
Bench: A S Bopanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRAURY 2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA
WRIT PETITION No.15876/2006 (L-RES)
BETWEEN:
THE SECRETARY
MYPOWER MAZDOOR WELFARE UNION
AMBIKANAGAR, DANDELI
N.K. DISTRICT-3
... PETITIONER
(BY SMT. K SAROJINI MUTHANNA, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE MANAGEMENT OF KARNATAKA
POWER CORPORATION LIMITED
BHARATIYA VIDYA BHAVAN
NO.82, SHAKTHI BHAVAN
RACE COURSE ROAD
BANGALORE 560001
BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
2. THE SECRETARY, KARNATAKA
POWER CORPORATION LIMITED
MINISTERIAL STAFF ASSOCIATION
AMBIKANAGAR, DANDELI R2 & R3 ARE DELETED AS PER
OF ORDER DATED 02.07.2007
N.K. DISTRICT
3. THE SECRETARY KARNATAKA
POWER CORPORATION LIMITED
SECURITY STAFF ASSOCIATION
NO.28, RAJA SNOW BUILDINGS
SHESHADRIPURAM, BANGALORE-20
4. THE SECRETARY
K.P.C. EMPLOYEES UNION
JOGFALL, KARGAL
SHIMOGA DISTRICT
2
5. RAICHUR THERMAL POWER
STATION EMPLOYEES UNION
SADASHIVANAGAR, VIA RAICHUR
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SOMASHEKHAR, ADV. FOR
SRI. S N MURTHY ASSTS. FOR R1
SRI V S NAIK &
SMT. MANJULA N KULKARNI, ADVs. FOR R4 & 5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO SET-ASIDE
AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED AWARD OF THE INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL IN ID NO.28/1988 DTD. 6.4.2006 VIDE ANX-J; B] AND
UPHOLD THE CHARTER OF DEMANDS AT SLNO.1 AND 29 OF
THE REFERENCE; C] TO HOLD THAT THE SETTLEMENT DATED
12.06.1987 AT ANX-A AS ONE NOT BINDING ON THE
PETITIONER; D] TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN ID NO. 28/88
FROM THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL BANGALORE AND
E] TO DIRECT THE MANAGEMENT TO PAY ALL ARREARS FROM
THE DATE OF THE DEMANDS UP TO DATE TOGETHER WITH
INTEREST AT 18%.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR
ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE
COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING :
ORDER
The petitioner-Union is before this Court assailing the award dated 06.04.2006 passed by the Industrial Tribunal in I.D. No. 28/1988 impugned at Annexure-J to the petition. Consequent thereto, the petitioner is seeking that the Charter of Demands at Sl. Nos.01 and 29 be upheld on declaring the settlement dated 12.06.1987 as not binding on the petitioner. On doing so, a direction to pay the arrears is also sought. 3
2. The petitioner, the fourth and fifth respondents are registered Trade Unions representing different sections of the workmen in the first respondent- Corporation. The fourth respondent is stated to be the recognised Union based on the check off system. The fourth and fifth respondents put together represent a major portion of the workmen. All the Unions submitted their separate Charter of Demands during January 1986 on the earlier settlement dated 31.12.1982 coming to an end on 31.12.1985. The same resulted in conciliation proceedings as required under Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('I.D.Act' for short). During the pendency of the proceedings the fourth and fifth respondent Unions entered into a settlement dated 12.06.1987 with the first respondent-Corporation and the proceedings was concluded. The petitioner-Union contends that Demand Nos.1 and 29 relating to pay fixation and promotion raised by them have not been resolved or included in the settlement and they are not signatories to the settlement and as such the same is not binding on them.
4
3. Despite the same, since the Government had refused to refer the same for adjudication, the petitioner-Union was before this Court in W.P.No.14176/1987. This Court through the order dated 25.11.1987 quashed the endorsement dated 07.09.1987 and directed that the dispute be referred to the appropriate Labour Court which resulted in the reference in I.D. No. 28/1988. At the first instance, the reference was rejected by the Industrial Tribunal by the award dated 27.09.1996. The petitioner-Union assailed the said award before this Court in W.P.No.21279/1997. This Court through the order dated 02.01.2003 set aside the award and remanded the matter to the Industrial Tribunal to decide denovo without being influenced by the observations made by this Court. Though the first respondent-Corporation had assailed the remand made, in W.A.No.1954/2003 contending that the same is contrary to the legal position, liberty was reserved to urge that contention before the Industrial Tribunal and the appeal was dismissed by the order dated 24.06.2003. Pursuant to 5 such remand, a detailed consideration is made by the Industrial Tribunal and the present impugned award dated 06.04.2006 is passed whereby the settlement dated 12.06.1987 is upheld on holding that the demands raised by the petitioner-Union is without substance. The petitioner-Union claiming to be aggrieved by the same is before this Court in this petition.
4. Heard Ms.Sarojini Muthanna, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Somashekar and Sri V.S.Naik, respective learned counsel for the first, fourth and fifth respondents at length and perused petition papers including the records received from the Industrial Tribunal.
5. The thrust of the contention on behalf the petitioner-Union is that the settlement dated 12.06.1987 is not binding on them as they are not signatories to the same nor was it a result of conciliation so as to construe the same as a settlement 6 contemplated under Section 12(3) of I.D.Act. In that light, it is contended that the fourth and fifth respondent Unions have not protected the interest of the workmen as they stand to lose financially. The higher increments and the promotion demanded by the petitioner-Union were necessary to be considered and incorporated to make the settlement complete. In that view, it is contended that the said benefits should be granted.
6. The respondents on the other hand dispute such contention and assert that though the conciliation meetings were held on several dates, the employees through the fourth and fifth respondent Unions had resorted to strike. In that background, after thorough negotiations, the settlement was arrived at, which was considered by the Conciliation Officer and the said settlement has been concluded. The benefits have been derived by all employees and after the period of settlement, five other settlements have been entered to which the petitioner-Union is also a party. Therefore, 7 they contend that it will not be proper to unsettle the settled issues after nearly three decades.
7. At the outset, it would be appropriate to notice the legal position relating to the purport of Labour settlements since the learned counsel for the parties, more particularly the learned counsel for the petitioner- Union has relied on a large number of decisions.
8. The decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner are as follows:
(i) The case of Mico Employee's Association -vs-
State of Karnataka (ILR 1986 Karn 3474) wherein the scope of the provisions under Section 12 and Rules 9, 10, 10A were considered and in that light, on taking note that pursuant to the notice under Rule 10, the parties had not filed their statements has explained the role to be played by the Conciliation Officer. It is held that he has to mediate and initiate conciliation proceedings in the prescribed manner and induce the parties to enter into settlement. Having regard to the 8 language of Section 12(2) of the Act, a mere signing of the settlement in the presence of the Conciliation Officer would not make it one in the course of conciliation proceedings. It was noticed that in the said case some meetings were kept confidential and no conciliation meeting took place till the date of settlement on 23.07.1981.
(ii) The case of Mohanakumaran Nair -vs-
Hindustan Latex Ltd. (1987-II-LLJ-318) wherein with reference to the settlement as contemplated under Section 12 of the Act, it is held that if the Conciliation Officer proceeds to make a memorandum of settlement signed by the employer and representatives of one faction of the employees to such dispute, the document cannot be called a settlement under law.
(iii) The case of Workmen represented by Andrew Yule & Co. Ltd. and its Group (Calcutta Region) Clerical Staff Union -vs- Learned Judge, Eighth Industrial Tribunal & Others (1999-I-LLJ 1182) 9 wherein it is held that a bipartite settlement is not binding on all the workmen, only a settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings which comes within the purview of Section 18(3) of the Act is binding on all the workmen. It is held that it may be a settlement arrived at by a large number of workmen is presumed to be fair but such presumption is rebuttable and the evidence and materials becomes relevant.
(iv) The case of Jhagrakhan Collieries (P) Ltd
-vs- Sri. G.C.Agarwal, Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur and others (SC on I.D.Act-612) wherein it is held that it is clear from a perusal of Section 18 of the Act that a settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings is binding not only on the actual parties to the industrial dispute but also on all the workmen in the establishment.
(v) The case of General Manager, Security Paper Mills, Hoshangabad -vs- R.S.Sharma and 10 others (SC on I.D.Act-572) wherein the expression settlement is taken into consideration, the duty of the conciliation officer in the conciliation proceedings is adverted to and is held that such a settlement arrived at by agreement between the employer and workmen otherwise than in the course of conciliation is binding only on the parties to the agreement as provided under Section 18(1) of I.D.Act. Such a settlement is not binding on the workmen who are not parties to the settlement.
(vi) The case of Indian Airlines -vs- Airlines Cabin Crew Assn. & Others (1994-II-LLJ-587) wherein it is observed that the settlement arrived at during the course of conciliation proceedings may be the last word on the subject which is covered by the settlement, but it cannot seal the fate of the union or the workmen thereby preventing them from raising disputes in future which were neither visualised at the time of settlement nor covered by the terms of settlement. The reference of 11 the disputes which have not been settled earlier was therefore upheld.
(vii) The case of ICI Ltd., CAFI Division -vs- Smt. N.A.Kadam and others (1993 Lab.I.C. 1498) wherein it is observed that in a situation covered by Section 18(1) of I.D.Act it is only the workmen who are members of the Unions signing the settlement who would be bound by the terms of settlement during its operative period. The workmen who are not members of that Union, whether they are members of other Unions or not, the settlement would not bind them and would be free to raise the dispute. The fact that a majority of the workmen are a party to the settlement would be a material and relevant factor to be considered by the Industrial Tribunal. If the Tribunal is satisfied that the terms of settlement are fair, reasonable and justified, the Tribunal may make an award extending it to all workmen in the establishment.
12
(viii) The case of Workmen of M/s. Sur Enamel & Stamping Works (P) Ltd. -vs- State of West Bengal and others and vice versa (SC on I.D.Act 629) wherein on finding that the prolonged conciliation proceedings though contended was not established by producing the minutes recorded and in the absence of material to indicate that the settlement was a result of conciliation it cannot be held as binding in terms of Section 18 of I.D.Act.
(ix) The case of Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. -vs- Union of India and Others (1984-I-LLJ-
174) wherein it is held that the intention of the legislature when it made the settlement binding not only on the parties but also to the present and future employers and workmen it intended that such settlement is arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings. A settlement which can be said to be arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings must be one which is arrived at during the time of pendency of the conciliation proceedings. The settlement has also 13 to be arrived at with the assistance of the Conciliation Officer and his concurrence. In the facts of that case it was held that there was no such proceedings.
(x) The case of M/s. TATA Chemicals Ltd.
-vs- Its workmen (SC on I.D. Act 576) wherein it is observed that when the agreement is not arrived at during the course of the conciliation proceeding it will not according to Section 18(1) of I.D. Act bind anyone other than the parties thereto. Section 2(k) of the Act does not restrict the ambit of the definition of 'industrial dispute' to a dispute between an employer and a recognised majority Union but takes within its sweep any dispute or difference between employer and workmen including a minority Union of workmen which is connected with employment or terms of employment or conditions of labour.
(xi) The case of Corporation Bank Employee's Union, Mangalore -vs- Corporation Bank, Mangalore and another (2000-I-LLJ-190) wherein it is observed 14 that when the issue of fitment formula is involved, the officer's union and staff union are entitled to negotiate. Settlement by the management with one union, in regard to such fitment formula will not bar the other union from agitating the matter. But Courts and Tribunals shall be reluctant to reopen any settlement already reached with the other union, unless fraud/collusion/mala fides or patent detriment to the employees concerned is made out. In that view, in the facts therein it is held that the petitioner union has no locus standi to seek quashing of the settlement reached, but if the employees of the clerical cadre are not satisfied with the settlement, the petitioner is not estopped from espousing the cause of its members by raising an industrial dispute in regard to the same matter. That will be the price payable by the management for negotiating with only one union in regard to such matter.
(xii) The case of Hindustan Copper Mazdoor Sangh -vs- The Chief Labour Commissioner (C) and 15 Others (1986 Lab. I.C. 1845) wherein while considering the Rajasthan amendment it is observed that in case there are two or more unions fulfilling the conditions necessary for registration under the I.D. Act and they apply for registration in respect of the same unit of an industry, the union having the largest membership of the employees employed in the unit of the industry shall be registered as representative union. The only right which is conferred on the representative union is to enter into a written agreement with the employer to submit the present or future industrial disputes or class of such disputes to arbitration. Unless a statute confers an exclusive right on the union of workmen to enter into negotiations with the management, even a minority union can raise the demand and conciliation proceedings can be initiated and settlements can be arrived at. If the conciliation proceedings fail, any industrial dispute raised even by an union which does not represent the majority workmen may be referred for adjudication by the Government to the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal. 16
9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the first respondent management has relied on the following decisions;
(i) The case of Chairman, State Bank of India
-vs- All Orissa State Bank Officer's Association and others (2002-II-LLJ-562) wherein with reference to the provisions of the Trade Unions Act and recognition thereof has held that with the growth of industrialisation in the country and progress made in the field of trade union activities the necessity for having multiple unions in an industry has been felt very often. Hence, the power has been vested with the management to recognise one of the trade unions for the purpose of having discussions and negotiations in labour related matters which is in recognition of collective bargaining. Such collective bargaining with the trade union having the support of majority of the workmen will help in maintaining industrial peace and will help smooth functioning of the establishment. Though such non-recognised unions may not have the right to participate in the process of collective 17 bargaining with the management/employer over issues concerning the workmen in general, they have the right to meet and discuss with the employer on issues relating to the individual member.
(ii) The case of I.T.C. Ltd., Workers Welfare Association and another -vs- The Management of ITC Ltd. and others (AIR 2002 SC 937) wherein with reference to the observations made in its earlier decision in Herbertsons case has held that a settlement which is a product of collective bargaining is entitled to due weight and consideration, more so when a settlement is arrived at in the course of conciliation proceeding. The settlement can only be ignored in exceptional circumstances viz. if it is demonstrably unjust, unfair or the result of mala fides such as corrupt motives on the part of those who were instrumental in effecting the settlement. That apart, the settlement has to be judged as a whole, taking an overall view. The various terms and clauses of settlement cannot be examined in piecemeal and in vacuum. In that light, the clause in 18 the settlement extending the pension scheme only to employees retiring after a particular date was not held to be bad when the settlement was taken as a whole.
(iii) The case of Herbertsons Ltd. -vs- Their Workmen and Others (1976(33) F.L.R. 398) wherein while taking note of the grievance relating to dearness allowance not being included in the settlement, the other benefits agreed therein was taken into consideration. Thus having regard to the totality of the terms of settlement the Hon'ble Supreme Court disagreed with the finding of the Tribunal that the terms were unfair or unreasonable. It is held that when negotiations take place it has to be encouraged, particularly with employer and labour. In the interest of general peace and well being, there is always give and take. The settlement has to be taken as a package deal and when labour has gained in the matter of wages and if there is some reduction in the matter of dearness allowance it cannot be said that the settlement as a whole is unfair and unjust. It is further observed that 19 there may be several factors that may influence parties to come to a settlement as a phased endeavour in the course of collective bargaining. Once cordiality is established in arriving at a settlement which operates well for the period that is in force, there is likelihood of further advance in the shape of improved emoluments by voluntary settlement avoiding unhealthy litigation. This is the quintessence of settlement which Courts and Tribunals should encourage. It is in that spirit the settlement has to be judged and not by the yardstick adopted in scrutinising an award in adjudication. It is not possible to scan the settlement in bits and pieces and hold some parts good and acceptable and others bad. Unless it can be demonstrated that the objectionable portion is such that it completely outweighs all other advantages gained the Court will be slow to hold a settlement as unfair and unjust.
(iv) The case of National Engineering Industries Ltd. -vs- State of Rajasthan and others (2000-I-LLJ-247) wherein in respect of the tripartite 20 settlement entered into between the management and two unions and there was a failure report in respect of demands made by the Workers Union which was yet another union and the issue relating to reference arose, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that a tripartite settlement has been arrived at among the management, Labour Union and the Staff Union. When such a settlement is arrived at, it is a package deal. In such deal some demands may be left out. The contention of the Worker's Union that the settlement was not arrived at during the conciliation proceedings under Section 12 of the Act and as such was not binding on the members of the Worker's Union was adverted and the contention was rejected as the recitals of the settlement indicated that it was arrived at during the conciliation proceedings. Thereafter the time lapse was referred and it was noticed that two more settlements have been entered and found it futile to allow the reference to continue after lapse of all those years and it was also held that the tripartite settlement did bind the members of the Worker's Union. 21
10. A perusal of the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner-Union will indicate that they are a duplication on the same point rendered by the different High Courts and the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The consolidation of the legal position as enunciated therein is, to construe a settlement as the one contemplated under Section 12 (3) of the I.D. Act so as to make it binding on all other employees and the Unions as provided under Section 18(1) of the Act, it should be one arrived with the assistance of the Conciliation Officer. The bipartite or tripartite settlements entered outside the conciliation proceedings will not have such binding effect. The role of the Conciliation Officer after the issue of notice as contemplated under Rule 10 of the Rules is explained to state that a proactive part is to be taken by the Conciliation Officer to bring about the settlement keeping in view the Charter of Demands of all the parties. The mere filing of the Charter of Demand by itself is not sufficient, but there should be proceedings 22 based on the statements filed. Even the minority Union also will have the right to participate in the conciliation proceedings and the demands raised by them also will require consideration. If such consideration is not made, the failure report is to be submitted under Section 12(4) of the I.D. Act and a reference is to be made for adjudication. If such reference is not made, the minority Union will still have the liberty of raising a dispute. Further, even if the benefits under the settlement are received by the members of such Union, the same will not preclude them from raising the dispute.
11. Despite such right being available to raise a dispute and the grievance being made out by the petitioner-Union, whether the settlement dated 12.06.1987 will call for interference at this stage is an aspect to be considered even before taking note of the demands of the petitioner-Union for the purpose of adjudication of the validity of the demands. Such consideration is to be made in the background of the 23 decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, relied on by the learned counsel for the first respondent-Corporation and also in the light of the learned counsel for the fourth and fifth respondent Unions who together represent more than 77% of the employees seeking to sustain the settlement.
12. To take note of this aspect, it is not in dispute that the grievance of the petitioner-Union is only with regard to Demand Nos.01 and 29 relating the pay scale and promotion. With regard to the pay scale, it is not as if the impugned settlement dated 12.06.1987 does not contain an agreement relating to the revised pay scale, but it is the case of the petitioner-Union that the Dearness Allowance has not been appropriately calculated and as such if the demand made by them is considered, the increment amount will be more than that is agreed to by the fourth and fifth respondent- Unions. In an attempt to demonstrate the same, the Chart at Ex.W-11 is relied upon. That apart though the consideration of promotion as sought by the petitioner- 24 Union is not made, the service weightage in the process of fixation is agreed upon.
13. In that background, as pointed out on behalf of the respondents about 41 different items have been agreed upon. Therefore, in that light, if the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the respondents is taken into consideration, the Hon'ble Supreme has explained the relevance of collective bargaining for maintaining industrial peace in view of the presence of multiple Unions and the relevance of the understanding being reached with the majority Union. In that view, it is held that the settlement which is a product of collective bargaining is entitled to due weight. The settlement can be ignored only in exceptional circumstances when it is demonstrably unjust, unfair or mala fide. The settlement is to be judged as a whole.
14. The decision in the case of Herbertsons Ltd. and in the case of National Engineering Ltd. are of utmost importance. Keeping in view the large number of 25 points on which an agreement had been reached under the settlement, the non-consideration of the demands put forth by the petitioner-Union in exact manner in which the demand was made will not make it bad as it is held that the settlement has to be taken as a package deal and when the labour has gained in the matter of wages and if there is some reduction in the matter of Dearness Allowance the settlement as a whole cannot be termed as unfair and unjust.
15. The consideration made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Engineering Industries Ltd (supra) in my opinion would be almost akin to the fact situation on hand. In the instant case, though at the first instance this Court in W.P.No.21279/1997 dated 02.01.2003 had remanded the matter with observations regarding consideration of the evidence available on record, in the said order itself the learned Judge had indicated that the observations therein would not come in the way of the learned Judge of the Tribunal deciding the issue denovo. When the 26 first respondent Management was before the Division Bench and sought to rely on the case in National Engineering Industries Ltd, the Division Bench had permitted the first respondent herein to rely on the same and agitate that point before the Tribunal. Therefore, in the background of that aspect, the relevance of the said decision is to be adverted to. In the said case also, the management had entered into a settlement on negotiating with three other unions, while the fourth union in the establishment was aggrieved in respect of some of the demands that were left out. While taking note of the contention that such Tripartite settlement cannot be considered as a settlement arrived at during the conciliation proceedings under Section 12 of the Act, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has repelled such contention by laying down that in such matters, what is necessary to be noticed is that the settlement would be arrived at as a package deal and the demands which are left out cannot be considered in a manner as it would arise for adjudication. Further the time lapse, the subsequent settlements being entered into and the 27 benefits being enjoyed by the employees is also an aspect to be taken note since in such circumstance the settlement would not call for interference.
16. In the above background, it could be noticed that the Conciliation Proceedings in fact had commenced before the Conciliation Officer and the proceedings is marked in evidence as Ex.W8. The fact that the fourth respondent-Union was the recognised Union at that point is not in dispute. In any event, the letter issued by the management recognising the fourth respondent is marked in evidence as exhibit. The fifth respondent which is another Union representing a Section of the workmen was in league with the fourth respondent. As per the statement provided the respondents No.4 and 5 were representing nearly 77% of the workmen while the remaining was being represented by the petitioner-Union. In that circumstance, as evident from the settlement dated 12.06.1987, the respondent-Union were negotiating the demands whereupon though meetings were held on 28 25.11.1986, 26.12.1986, 08.01.1987 and 21.02.1987, the parties did not reach an understanding, due to which a strike notice dated 16.03.1987 was served and as such the dispute was taken up by the Joint Labour Commissioner for conciliation through the notice dated 17.03.1987. Though proceedings were held by the Conciliation Officer on 21.03.1987 and 31.03.1987, no understanding was reached, but the bilateral negotiations though continued, did not see fruitful results and the strike was therefore commenced from 13.04.1987. It is thereupon the bilateral negotiations were once again held and on reaching the consensus, the settlement was drawn up and brought up before the Conciliation Officer and the matter was taken up on 06.06.1987 to which all the Unions were called and the Conciliation Proceedings was held on 11.06.1987 and 12.06.1987. The settlement having been accepted, the proceedings were closed.
17. The nature in which the matter had proceeded no doubt is not a situation whereby the 29 terms of settlement have emanated and crystallised in the course of the proceedings based on the advice of the Conciliation Officer during the course of proceedings itself. However, the sequence as noticed above will indicate that a lot of deliberations have taken place though bilateral in nature and the terms of settlement have thereafter materialised. It is not as if the Conciliation Proceedings was abandoned on the ground that the parties had settled the matter amongst themselves. On the other hand the settlement that had been entered into between the parties was placed before the Conciliation Officer who has applied his mind as seen from the proceedings recorded before accepting the settlement. It would be profitable to extract the relevant portion from the proceedings of the Conciliation Officer which reads as hereunder:
"J¯Áè ¸ÀAWÀUÀ¼ÀÆ PÉÆnÖgÀĪÀ ¨ÉÃrPÉUÀ¼À ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ §UÉÎ ¥Àj²Ã®£É £ÀqÉ¢zÀÄÝ, ªÀiÁ£ÀåvÉ ¥ÀqÉzÀ ¸ÀAWÀUÀ¼À ¨ÉÃrPÉ¥ÀnÖ ºÁUÀÆ C¤¹PÉUÀ½UÉ DzÀåvÉ PÉÆlÄÖ CªÀgÀ eÉÆvÉ ZÀZÀð¹ M¥ÀàAzÀPÉÌ §gÀ¯ÁVzÉ. ªÀiÁ£ÀåvÉ ¥ÀqÉzÀ ¸ÀAWÀUÀ¼ÀÄ GzÀåªÀÄzÀ CvÀåAvÀ §ºÀĪÀÄvÀ ¥ÀqÉzÀ ¸ÀAWÀªÁVgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ PÁ«ÄðPÀgÀ ¸ÉêÁ¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ, 30 ¸ÀªÀ®vÀÄÛUÀ¼À §UÀUÉ ZÀað¹ M¥ÀàAzÀPÉÌ §gÀ®Ä ¸ÁPÀµÀÄÖ ¥Áæw¤xÀå ºÉÆA¢zÁÝgÉ. DzÀÝjAzÀ EvÀgÀ ¸ÀAWÀUÀ¼À DPÉëÃ¥ÀuÉUÀ¼ÀÄ K£ÁzÀgÀÆ EzÀÝ°è CªÀÅ ¥Àj²Ã®£ÁºÀð C®è JAzÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ ¥ÀjUÀt¹ M¥ÀàAzÀªÀ£ÀÆß gÁføÀAzsÁ£À £ÀqÀªÀ½PÉAiÀÄ°è DzÀ M¥ÀàAzÀ JAzÀÄ ¥ÀæªÀiÁtÂÃPÀgÀ¹ ¸À» ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVzÉ. F £ÀqÀªÀ½PÉUÀ¼À°è §gÉzÀ «µÀAiÀÄUÀ½UÉ JgÀqÀÆ ¥ÀPÀëUÀ¼ÀÄ ¥ÀÆtðªÁV §zÀÞªÁVzÀÄÝ, M¥ÀàAzÀzÀ ¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ½UÉ ºÁUÀÆ F £ÀqÀªÀ½PÉUÀ½UÉ ¥ÀÆtð ¸ÀºÀªÀÄvÀ ¸ÀÆa¹zÁÝgÉ JAzÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ ¥ÀæªÀiÁtÂÃPÀj¸À¯ÁVzÉ. M¥ÀàAzÀzÀ ¥ÀæwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß JgÀqÀÆ ¥ÀPÀëUÀ¼ÀÄ ¥ÀqÉ¢zÁÝgÉ."
(emphasis supplied)
18. If in the background of the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Conciliation Proceedings though may have not concluded in a typical straight-jacket manner as stated therein, the settlement in the facts herein cannot be ignored as being one not entered in the process of conciliation. Except for contending that the Dearness Allowance has not been appropriately taken into consideration while providing for the increments and the promotion policy as sought has not been incorporated, there is no concrete material to indicate that the terms as agreed between the parties on other aspects which would also include the pay scale 31 and fitment formula is totally against the interest of the workmen or that it is contrary to law. Hence, the question of setting aside such settlement at the instance of the petitioner-Union would not be justified. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that they have been authorised by majority of the workers to raise the dispute, when at the first instance the majority union has represented the workmen, if any contrary consideration is made based on such contention, it would lead to industrial anarchy rather than promoting industrial peace since it would set a trend of unsettling a settled issue and will be opposed to the very concept of collective bargaining which is time tested.
19. Be that as it may, though the matter could have been allowed to rest at that, the decision in the case of Corporation Bank Employees Union, Mangalore (supra) relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner would provide that the Union would not be estopped from espousing the cause of its members by raising an industrial dispute. Further, though at the 32 first instance the reference as contemplated under Section 12(4) of the Act was not made in the instant proceedings, the dispute no doubt had been referred to the Industrial Tribunal in view of the order dated 25.11.1987 passed in W.P.No.14176/1987. In that light, the Industrial Tribunal has adjudicated the matter and rejected the reference. Since the learned counsel for the petitioner has sought to contend that the findings of the Industrial Tribunal is perverse, having noticed the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the first respondent wherein it is held that the same standard of consideration cannot be made while taking note of the settlement and be applied in adjudication, the scrutiny of the impugned award in the background of the evidence tendered is required to the limited extent in terms of the said observations to only find out the fairness or otherwise of the settlement.
20. In that regard, I have adverted to the award dated 06.04.2006 in I.D.No.28/1988 which is at Annexure-J to the petition. A perusal of the same will 33 disclose that the learned Judge of the Industrial Tribunal has in fact at the outset taken note of the Demands No. 1 and 29, for better appreciation has extracted the same and the contention on that aspect was noticed. In that regard, took into consideration the manner in which the dearness allowance at 608 points of AICPI was taken to fix the wage structure. In that background, the reference as made to the Industrial Tribunal was adverted to and the evidence tendered is referred. The evidence of the witnesses WW-1 and WW-2 examined on behalf of the petitioner-Union, the witnesses WW-3 and WW-4 on behalf of the fourth respondent-Union and the documents at Exhs. W-1 to W-61 were noticed and in that light, the evidence on behalf of the first respondent through MWs-1 to 3 was taken into consideration.
21. While analysing the evidence, reference is made to Exhs.W-7 and 8 to notice the settlement in question and the proceedings before the Conciliation Officer which lead to the same. In the background of 34 the evidence, the position of law as has been noticed herein has been referred to understand the extent to which interference is possible and it has in my opinion correctly appreciated by the then learned Judge of the Industrial Tribunal. Even while examining the fairness of the settlement, detailed reference has been made to the nature of the benefit that has been agreed in the settlement and the manner in which the petitioner was seeking. In that regard, the difference between the pre- revised scale and the scale conceded under the settlement from Rs.340/- to Rs.845/- with the increment at Rs.20/- as against Rs.10/- originally available for the post of Helper and in similar manner for the other posts was noticed. In that regard having referred to the evidence of WW-3, MW-3 and on noticing the evidence of WW-1 as against the same, did not find any discrepancy.
22. As against the thorough analysis made by the learned Judge of the Industrial Tribunal, the learned Counsel for the petitioner with reference to Annexure-K, 35 namely the chart produced at Ex. W-11 sought to refer to the calculation of the Dearness allowance and in that view referred to the increments which is more by Rs.10/- as per the demand of the petitioner as against what has been fixed after revision as per the settlement. Having noted the same, I am of the opinion, that alone cannot form the basis to decide the fairness of the settlement. In fact the basic pay shown in the revised scale as against the basic demanded by the petitioner is more. If such other aspects are kept in view, there being give and take and if the settlement is taken as a package deal as has been emphasised by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the settlement under any circumstance cannot be termed as unjust, unfair or malafide so as to call for interference. In that light, while taking note of the award in the limited scope of examination available to this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, there is no demonstrable error committed by the Industrial Tribunal nor can the same be considered as perverse so as to call for interference.
36
23. Above all, what cannot be lost sight is also that nearly three decades have passed after the settlement dated 12.06.1987 marked at Ex.W7 was entered into. As indicated in the objection statement, the subsequent settlements dated 26.08.1991, 03.04.1996, 12.06.2000 and 28.03.2007 have been entered into between the labour Unions and the management. The last settlement has thereafter been entered into on 30.10.2012 and to the said subsequent settlements, the petitioner-Union also is a party. In the last of the settlement entered into, the revision of wages has also been agreed upon. Hence, when much water has flown under the bridge, in any case, it would not be prudent to disturb the existing situation which even otherwise would not merit consideration.
In the result, the petition is dismissed without any order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE akc/bms