Karnataka High Court
Bpl Group Of Companies Karmikara ... vs State Of Karnataka And Others on 12 April, 1999
Equivalent citations: [2000(85)FLR159], ILR1999KAR3520, 2000(1)KARLJ355, (2000)IILLJ641KANT
Author: V. Gopala Gowda
Bench: V. Gopala Gowda
ORDER
1. In all these writ petitions the petitioner is BPL Group of Companies Karmikara Sangh, first respondent is the State Government, respondent 2 is the Commissioner of Labour, respondent 3 is the Assistant Labour Commissioner and Conciliation Officer and the 4th respondent is the management of various units of the company. The petitioner is aggrieved by the prohibition of strike by the workers of 4th respondent under Annexure-A and the order of reference at Annexure-B referring the industrial disputes raised by the petitioner-Union for adjudication. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of reference on the ground that all the points of dispute raised by it have not been referred by the Government. Hence, the common prayers in all these writ petitions is to declare the impugned orders at Annexures-A and B as illegal, arbitrary and unjust, to direct the first respondent to refer all the points of dispute by issuance of a fresh order of reference and to grant interim relief under Section 10-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
2. Since the facts are common, the parties are common except the 4th respondent, the law involved is same and the reliefs sought for are identical, all these writ petitions were heard together and disposed of by this common order.
3. The facts leading to the present writ petitions are that the petitioner-Union submitted charter of demands to the management of 4th respondent seeking better service conditions to the workmen. As the demands were not fulfilled and the managements of 4th respondent did not came forward to resolve the claims, the petitioner-Union gave a call for strike and the strike was continued demanding implementation of the demands. Various allegations are made in the writ petitions against the 4th respondent managements and they are not necessary for the disposal of these writ petitions. Ultimately, the disputes raised by the petitioner-Union were referred for adjudication by the impugned orders at Annexure-B and the strike was prohibited. In those circumstances the petitioner-Union has approached this Court seeking the reliefs referred to above.
4. Mr. Anantharam, learned Counsel for the petitioner-Union submits that the Government should have referred all the points of dispute for adjudication. He submits that some of the disputes relating to lay-off, suspension, termination, justification of strike etc., have not at all been referred for adjudication. He therefore submits that the exercise of power by the Government is in contravention of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Administration v Workmen of Edward Keuenters and Another . In connection with the prohibition of strike, Mr. Anantharam placed reliance on the decision in Metal Box India Limited v State of Tamil Nadu, and submits that while exercising the power under Section 10(3) of the Act, it is not mentioned that the prohibition of strike was for maintaining industrial peace and therefore the order prohibiting the strike is bad in law. The ground urged for attacking the impugned orders at Annexure-B is that the Government has not granted interim relief under Section 10-B of the Act and thereby the Government has failed to exercise the power under Section 10-B of the Act. Reliance is placed on the decision reported in AIR 1959 SC 1344 (sic), in this regard.
5. A detailed statement of objection is filed on behalf of the 4th respondent in all these writ petitions traversing various contentions and denying the allegations made against the 4th respondent and seeking to justify the impugned orders. Mr. K. Kasturi, learned Counsel for the 4th respondent, vehemently submitted that the power under Section 10-B of the Act has been properly exercised by the Government on the basis of the report submitted by the Conciliation Officer and hence, the reference made is proper. The Counsel submits that the Government did not grant interim relief having regard to the revision of wages made by the 4th respondent during May and July, 1997 and that was the relevant consideration which weighed the mind of the Government for not granting the interim relief. As regards the order of reference, the Counsel submits that substantial points of dispute agitated before the Conciliation Officer had been taken into consideration, points were formulated and the disputes were referred and merely because some of the points of disputes are not referred for adjudication, the same will not vitiate the entire action of the State Government in prohibiting the strike and making the orders of reference. Mr. Kasturi also placed reliance on the decision relied upon by Mr. Anantharam in the case of Delhi Administration cited supra and submitted that in case only one point of dispute was referred for adjudication but in the instant cases all the points of dispute except a few have been referred and therefore the said decision has no application to the facts of the instant cases. The Counsel submits that this Court should not exercise its power under Article 226 of the Constitution to interfere with the impugned orders unless it is shown that what have been referred for adjudication are not industrial disputes. The Counsel for the management prays for dismissal of the writ petitions.
6. Mr. Mehaboob Ali Khan, learned Additional Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of respondents 1 to 3, has produced the records pertaining to these matters maintained by the Labour Department and the Government. He submits that the Government has prohibited the strike in order to maintain industrial peace and harmony in the industry, which is the statutory duty of the Government. He further submits that interim relief was not granted and that issue has been referred by the Government for adjudication. It amounts to rejection of the claim of the workmen for interim relief. He fairly submits that even after the orders of reference made to the Industrial Tribunal, the left out points of dispute could be referred by issuing a corrigendum or addendum to the orders of reference and in all fairness he submits that the Government is bound to and is willing to pass appropriate orders in respect of the left out points of disputes expeditiously.
7. As regards the disputes not referred by the Government are concerned, Mr. Anantharam has furnished the details of such disputes in all these writ petitions and copies are also furnished to the learned Additional Government Advocate with regard to various points of disputes that were requested to be referred in respect of each of the unit of fourth respondent. Having regard to the submission made by the learned Additional Government Advocate that the Government will refer the left out points of disputes for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, without considering the contentions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties in this regard, it would be suffice if an appropriate direction is issued to the Government in that regard.
8. The main grievance of the workmen is in relation to non-grant of interim relief by the Government while making the references. In order to ascertain as to how the issue has been dealt with by the Government, the records produced by the learned Additional Government Advocate have been perused. The Labour Commissioner and the Conciliation Officer in his failure reports has adverted to the grant of interim relief and he was of the opinion to grant Rs. 300-00 to each of the workers as interim relief from the date of prohibition of the strike until the disputes are adjudicated by the Industrial Tribunal. On the basis of the said report, the Deputy Secretary to the Government has put-up a note and placed for orders. The Deputy Chief Minister, who was incharge of Labour portfolio, has passed order on 1-2-1999 to issue orders for grant of interim relief as recommended by the Labour Commissioner and to prohibit the strike and to refer the disputes to the Industrial Tribunal and granted the interim relief to the workmen until the industrial disputes are decided. Thereafter, at the instance of the Chief Minister vide note dated 2-2-1999 a further note has been put-up to the effect that the file has to be submitted for perusal of the Chief Minister. It is seen that the Chief Minister convened a meeting on 3-2-1999 with the Principal Secretary, C and I, Principal Secretary to C.M. Principal Secretary to Labour and the Labour Commissioner. The Chief Minister desired to know the financial implication for grant of interim relief to the workmen. The Labour Commissioner was consulted in the matter and he gave revised proposal for payment of interim relief. The Principal Secretary, Labour Department passed an order suggesting to agree with the proposal and to issue notification under Section 10-B of the Act. The Chief Minister ordered to discuss the proposal with the Labour Minister and the officers of Labour Department and to give suggestion in the matter. Thereafter, the Labour Minister after narrating the facts, has suggested to prohibit the strike and to refer the issue relating to grant of interim relief to the Labour Court and submitted the same for approval. The Chief Minister approved the same. The Labour Minister passed an order on 24-2-1999 to implement the approval made by the Chief Minister.
9. From what has been observed above, it is clear that even though the Deputy Chief Minister, who was holding the portfolio of Labour Ministry, has ordered on 1-2-1999 to issue orders for grant of interim relief at the rate of Rs. 300-00 per month to all the workmen and to prohibit the strike as suggested by the Labour Commissioner, order was not issued due to the intervention of Chief Minister on the basis of the letter written by the Principal Secretary to the Commerce and Industries Department. Thereafter, it was decided not to grant the interim relief and the Government decided to refer the issue regarding grant of interim relief to the workers for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal. From this it is clear that the Government had no firm decision in the matter. The decisions have been changed from one Minister after another. The object and purpose for which power is conferred upon the Government is defeated. The Government should have borne in mind in a matter like this the public safety, maintenance of public order and industrial peace while exercising the power under Section 10-B of the Act. That has been deliberately and totally ignored in the instant cases. From the files produced by the learned Additional Government Advocate, particularly the file of the Government, it is noticed that certain untoward incidents took place on 25-3-1999 and the photographs of victims of those incidents are also found in the file. Those photographs are shocking. Had the Government exercised its power properly without changing the decision taken by the Deputy Chief Minister, who was also the Labour Minister at the relevant point of time, keeping in view the recommendations made by the Labour Commissioner, probably such incidents would not have occurred. Even though the Deputy Chief Minister has ordered on 1-2-1999 to issue orders for payment of interim relief and to prohibit the strike, instead of issuing the order, on the next day a note has been put-up by the Chief Minister on the basis of the letter of the Principal Secretary to Commerce and Industries Department suggesting to put-up the file for his perusal on the ground that the matter was sensitive in nature. Under what circumstances the Chief Minister desired to peruse the file is not known.
10. It is also pertinent to note that the Principal Secretary, Commerce and Industries Department, by name N. Viswanathan, has sent an unofficial note dated 5-9-1998, signed on 30-1-1999, to the Principal Secretary of Labour Department suggesting to refer the issue relating to payment of interim relief for adjudication. After referring to the proposal sent by the Labour Commissioner for grant of interim relief, it is stated thus.---
"It is felt that such a step by the Government is not desirable since the basic issue of the tenability of the registration given to the so-called labour union of BPL Group is yet to be decided upon. It would, therefore, be inappropriate if Government issues such an order without addressing all aspects of the case".
This Court fails to understand as to why such an unofficial note was sent by the Principal Secretary of Commerce and Industries Department to the Principal Secretary of Labour Department with a copy to the Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister. The issue pertains to Labour Department but the Principal Secretary of Commerce and Industries Department has stepped-into the shoes of Labour Department. The aforesaid note had been discussed in the meeting held on 3-2-1999 conducted by the Chief Minister. It appears that in view of the said note the Chief Minister sought for further information. This is how unconcerned persons have intervened in the matter and the same has resulted in Government not taking a firm decision in the matter, thereby it has failed to discharge its statutory duty and exercise its power under Section 10-B of the Act keeping in view the object, intentment and purpose of granting the interim relief to the workmen.
11. Mr. K. Kasturi, learned Counsel for the 4th respondents sought to argue that the Chief Minister in consultation with the Labour Minister came to the conclusion not to grant interim relief to the workers and accordingly, the same has been rejected. Reliance has been placed in this regard on the decision in Bachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab and Another. In this context, it is necessary to determine whether the Chief Minister's interference was permissible and necessitated in the matter of grant of interim relief to the workmen under Section 10-B of the Act. In order to find-out this, it is necessary to examine the provisions contained in the Karnataka Government (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Business Rules') and the Karnataka Government (Transaction of Business) Rules, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Transaction Rules') framed by the Governor of Karnataka in exercise of the powers conferred under Article 166 of the Constitution of India.
12. The cases to be brought before the Cabinet are enumerated in the First Schedule to Transaction Rules. Rule 36 of the Transaction Rules stipulates that the cases of the nature specified in Second Schedule shall, before the issue of orders thereon, be submitted to the Chief Minister by the Secretary of the concerned department. In the Second Schedule, the case relating to grant of interim relief to workmen under Section 10-B of the Act is not specified. Rule 6(1) of the Transaction Rules reads thus.---
"6(1) Subject to the provisions of these Rules in regard to consultation with other Department and submission of cases to the Chief Minister, the Cabinet and the Governor, all business allotted to a Department under Karnataka Government (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1977 shall be disposed of by, or under the general or special direction of the Minister-in-charge" .
A plain reading of the underlined portion from the above Rule makes it is clear that all the business allotted to a department under the Business Rules shall be disposed of by the general or special direction of the Minister-in-charge. The business shall not be referred to the Chief Minister. Under Rule 2 of the Business Rules, the business of the State Government shall be transacted as specified in the Schedules thereto. By Notification No. DCA 7 ARB 93, dated 21-1-1994 published in the Karnataka Gazette dated 4-2-1994, Schedule XVI-A has been inserted to the Business Rules. It relates to Labour Department. In Part-A of the said Schedule the first item relates to workmen's compensation, employees' liability, invalidity and old age pension. The second item pertains to welfare of labour including conditions of labour, minimum wages, provident funds and amenities for labour. The third item relates to industrial and labour disputes, conciliation and arbitration. The ninth item relates to all other matters pertaining to conditions of employment. Thus, it is clear that under the Business Rules the matters relating to the service conditions of labours has been left to be transacted by the Labour Department. Under Rule 6(1) of Transaction Rules, the business allotted to the Labour Department shall be disposed of by the concerned Minister, namely, the Labour Minister.
13. Added to Rule 6(1), Rule 14(1) of the Transaction Rules also stipulates as under.---
"14(1) Without prejudice to the provisions of Rules 17 and 21, the Minister-in-charge shall be primarily responsible for the disposal of the business pertaining to his Department".
The above Rule in unambiguous terms prescribes that the Minister-in-charge of a department is primarily responsible for the disposal of business concerning his department. Part III of Transaction Rules relates to Departmental Disposal of Business. Rule 33(1) thereof also prescribes that subject to the provisions of these Rules, the Minister-in-charge may dispose of all cases arising in departments under his control. The matter shall be submitted to the decision of the Chief Minister only if it relates to more than one department and there is difference of opinion among the concerned ministers, as provided in sub-rule (4) of Rule 33 of Transaction Rules.
14. From what has been observed above, it is clear that the Minister-in-charge of Labour Department alone was to dispose of the cases concerning his department and accordingly, the Deputy Chief Minister, who was holding the portfolio of Labour Ministry, had passed orders on 1-2-1999 for grant of interim relief as recommended by the Labour Commissioner. Once he had passed such an order, it ought to have been implemented as he has discharged his primary responsibility in the matter relating to his department as envisaged under Rule 14(1) of the Transaction Rules. The Secretary of Labour Department should have acted upon the order passed by the Deputy Chief Minister holding the portfolio of Labour Department. The intervention of Chief Minister in the matter is neither authorised nor permitted under the Act, the Business Rules and the Transaction Rules. The State Government has committed a mistake in submitting the file to the Chief Minister after the concerned Labour Minister taken decision and passed orders for grant of interim relief to the workmen. Consequently, the order passed by the Chief Minister not to grant interim relief and to refer the issue for adjudication was wholly unwarranted and is without the authority of law. The action amounts to legal mala fides and there is a colourable exercise of power for extraneous considerations.
15. The only rule which stipulates that cases shall be submitted to the Chief Minister before issue of orders is Rule 36 of Transaction Rules. But, it is restricted only to the cases specified in the Second Schedule thereof. As already observed, the case relating to grant of interim relief under Section 10-B of the Act to the workmen is not stipulated in the Second Schedule. Hence, there was no necessity to submit the file relating to grant of interim relief to the workmen to the Chief Minister and the Chief Minister should not have involved in the matter and passed the order. The further order passed by the subsequent Labour Minister to implement the order passed by the Chief Minister is also bad in law. Making reference of the issue relating to grant of interim relief is not the intent, purpose and object of the Act. Notwithstanding making reference relating to grant of interim relief, the Tribunal has got incidental power under Section 10(4) of the Act for considering and granting interim relief to the workmen. Therefore, there was no necessity of making a reference of that issue to the Tribunal.
16. For the aforesaid reasons, the submission of the learned Counsel cannot be accepted. It is also to be noted that it is not a State issue to consult the Council of Ministers by the Chief Minister to take a decision in the matter. It is an issue required to be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of Section 10-B of the Act for which no consultation of Chief Minister or Council of Ministers is required. The decision pressed into service by Mr. K. Kasturi has no application to the facts of the case.
17. In the case of Kanoria Industries Limited, Bagalkot v State of Karnataka and Others, it is held that.---
"An order under Section 10-B is in the nature of an interim order. ... In coming to the conclusion whether the grounds mentioned in Section 10-B exist or not, it is not necessary for the Government to hear the management. The formation of the opinion is based on its subjective satisfaction and not by means of a detailed or protracted enquiry. It is a sovereign function of the Government and not a lis to be decided by it.
The power under Section 10-B is to be exercised to meet an emergent situation. The wording of Section 10-B itself indicates that it excludes the operation of the rule of audi alteram partem".
From the law laid down as above, it is clear that the formation of opinion must be subjective satisfaction. The Deputy Chief Minister holding the portfolio of Labour Ministry had formed such subjective satisfaction and ordered grant of interim relief. The same ought not to have been changed subsequently at the intervention of the Chief Minister by the succeeding Labour Minister. In view of the law declared in the aforesaid decision, the meeting held in the chamber of Chief Minister and the reasons assigned are totally irrelevant for exercising the power under Section 10-B of the Act.
18. The events from the date of reference and prohibition of strike yielded counter productive to public disorder. There is no peace and harmony in the units of the fourth respondent-company, for which the parties are blaming each other. The notes in the records produced by the learned Additional Government Advocate are self-explanatory as to who is responsible for creating the present situation. The facts and the way in which the matter has been dealt with at various levels by the State Government are placed on record to express the concern for the circumstances leading to workers continuing strike and the unfortunate incidents that took place on account of this. The Court is placing on record that responsible persons in the State Government have not acted in a responsible manner promptly and properly at the appropriate time. On account of such laches, the workmen have been put to hardship and agony.
19. Since the justification or otherwise of strike by the workers is one of the points of disputes referred, it has to be determined by the Industrial Tribunal and the same need not be considered in these writ petitions. In the interest of the workers, industry and the general public, it would be better for the workers to call-off the strike and to resume work. The managements shall also not resort to vindictive attitude towards the workmen and they shall create a congenial atmosphere and build-up harmonious relationship for the smooth running of the units. Both sides must act responsibly and co-operate with each other and maintain industrial peace and harmony in the interest of both the parties and in the larger interest of general public. They shall not stand on prestige and make the relationship worse. Merely because the persons at the helm of affairs have not acted properly and discharged their duties sincerely, the workmen are not absolved in taking up the cause and fight endlessly. The management has got greater responsibility in bringing harmonious relationship with the workmen for the smooth functioning of their units.
20. It is also made clear that pursuant to the observations made during the course of this order if the workers call-off the strike and resume for the work, the same shall not be construed that they have accepted the strike was illegal and hence they have withdrawn it. The justification or otherwise of the strike shall be independently considered and a finding shall be recorded by the Industrial Tribunal pursuant to the reference made by the State Government.
21. For the reasons stated above, it is not necessary to quash the impugned orders except the order at Annexure-B only insofar as it relates to referring the issue pertaining to grant of interim relief for adjudication. As regards the other prayers of the petitioner are concerned, I pass the following order.---
22. The writ petitions are partly allowed. Only the reference made in Annexure-B with regard to grant of interim relief is quashed. A direction is issued to the first respondent to consider expeditiously for referring the left out points of disputes as indicated in the memos filed by the petitioner in each of the writ petitions for adjudication and pass appropriate orders. The Government is also directed to consider whether the workers are entitled for interim relief or not keeping in view the recommendation made by the Labour Commissioner, the order passed by the Deputy Chief Minister who was holding the portfolio of Labour Ministry, object and purpose for which the said power is conferred, the provisions of Section 10-B of the Act and the observations made during the course of this order and pass suitable orders within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.