Karnataka High Court
The Management Of Mangalore Chemicals ... vs The General Secretary Mcf Workers' ... on 14 September, 2012
Author: K.Sreedhar Rao
Bench: K.Sreedhar Rao
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.SREEDHAR RAO
AND
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.SURI APPA RAO
W.A. No. 1726/2006 C/w
W.A. No.614/2007 (L-Res)
In W.A. No. 1726/2006 :
Between:
The Management of
Mangalore Chemicals &
Fertilizers Ltd., Panambur,
Mangalore - 575 010,
Represented by its
Company Secretary. ...Appellant
(By M/s. S.N. Murthy Associates, Adv.)
And :
The General Secretary,
MCF Workers' Union, Panambur,
Mangalore - 575 010. ...Respondent
(By M/s. Subba Rao and Co., Adv.)
-2-
In W.A. No. 614/2007 :
Between:
Workmen of Mangalore
Chemicals & Fertilizers Limited,
Represented by the MCF Workers'
Union (A Trade Union registered
Under the Indian Trade Unions Act),
Represented by the General Secretary,
Having its Office at Panambur,
Mangalore - 575 010,
Dakshina Kannada District. ...Appellant
(By M/s. Subba Rao and Co., Adv.)
And :
M/s. Mangalore Chemicals &
Fertilizers Limited,
Represented by the Company Secretary,
Panambur,
Mangalore - 575 010,
Dakshina Kannada District. ...Respondent
(By M/s. S.N. Murthy Associates, Adv.)
These Writ Appeals are filed under Section 4 of
Karnataka High Court Act praying to set aside the order
passed in the Writ Petition No.4808/2002 dated
06.09.2006.
These W.A.s having been heard and reserved for
Judgment, this day V. SURI APPA RAO, J pronounced
the following: -
-3-
JUDGMENT
These appeals are filed challenging the legality and correctness of the order dated 06.09.2006 in W.P.No.4808/2002, whereby the learned Single Judge partly allowed the Writ Petition declaring that all the eligible employees of Union are entitled for benefits under the superannuation scheme and modified the award extending benefit under superannuation scheme from 30.04.1990 instead of 01.01.1986.
2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the learned Single Judge, the Company has filed W.A.No.1726/2006 to set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge and to quash the award dated 31.07.2001 in Reference No.55/1990 passed by the Labour Court, Mangalore, directing the appellant- Company to extend to all the workmen who are in service as on 01.01.1986 the benefit under the superannuation Scheme introduced by the Company. -4- The Trade Union has filed W.A.No.614/2007 to set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and to restore the award dated 31.07.2001 passed by the Labour Court.
The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the learned Single Judge.
3. The brief facts of the case are as hereunder:
The Company is engaged in the manufacture of fertilizer products. The respondent in W.A.No.1726/2006 is a registered Trade Union representing the workmen in the Company. The Company introduced a scheme called Superannuation scheme with effect from 01.01.1986. As per the scheme, the employees who were drawing monthly Rs.2,500/- or more were entitled for the benefit under the scheme and the Company will contribute for the employees which they will draw at the time of retirement. The employees who were drawing monthly -5- salary of less than Rs.2,500/- were not given benefit under the Scheme. Aggrieved by the terms and conditions of the scheme, the Union approached the Labour Court vide Reference No.55/1990. Considering the oral and documentary evidence of both the parties, the Labour Court passed award directing the Company to extend the benefit under the Scheme to all the workmen who are in service with effect from 01.01.1986. The learned Single Judge modified the award extending the benefit under the superannuation scheme from 30.04.1990 onwards instead of 01.01.1986.
4. The Company as well as the Union have filed the appeals challenging the order of the learned Single Judge.
5. Heard the learned Counsel for the Company and the Trade Union.
6. The learned Counsel for the Company submitted that admittedly, the Company introduced a -6- superannuation Linked Group Insurance scheme in the year 1974, which provided benefit to those employees not covered under the payment of Bonus Act, 1965. The scheme envisages voluntary contribution by the Company to a superannuation fund which would provide pension to the retired employees or to the widow or children of an employee who died while in service.
7. The learned Counsel for the Company submitted that though the scheme was in operation from 1973 onwards, for the first time in 1990 after 17 years, the Union made a demand to extend the scheme to all the employees including those drawing below Rs.2,500/- per month, contrary to the settlement entered into by the Company and the Union under Section-12 clause (3) of the I.D.Act, 1947 and that the demand for extension of the scheme to those covered under the payment of Bonus Act, was never raised by the Company.
-7-
8. It is further contended that as per Clause 33 (ii) and (iii) of the agreement, the Union agreed not to raise any other demand involving any extra financial commitment on the company during the pendency of the agreement. As per the settlement, the demand for not extending the superannuation scheme to those drawing Rs.2,500/- p.m. or less was not the charter of demands, as such, would not come under clause (a) of the above. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was not justified in holding that clause 33 does not bar the Union from raising a dispute in respect of demand not raised in the charter of demands. It is further submitted that as per the settlement, the Union will not raise any other demand involving any extra financial commitment to the Company during the period of agreement.
9. The learned Counsel for the Company further submitted that there was an abnormal delay in raising the industrial dispute as the superannuation scheme -8- was introduced in the year 1973. The Union submitted charter of demands from time to time and they have not placed any demand relating to superannuation scheme till 1990. Therefore, the dispute raised by the Union is liable to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches.
10. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel for the Company placed reliance in the case of North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation, Hubli Vs. Abdul Salam reported in 2002-II-LLJ Page 297. In the above case, the Division Bench of this Court held that the unexplained delay of eight years by the workmen in raising dispute renders the reference stale and dead.
11. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the Union submitted that the terms of the settlement between the parties do not bar the Union from claiming equal treatment to all the employees though the same was not the subject matter of charter of demands. He further -9- submitted that the Union can raise the dispute at any time.
12. The learned Counsel for the Union in support of his contention placed reliance in the case of D.S.Nakara and others Vs. Union of India reported in (1983) 1 SCC 305. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held at page 306 as under:
"Pension is neither a bounty not a matter of grace depending upon the sweet will of the employer, nor an ex gratia payment. It is a payment for the past service rendered. It is a social welfare measure rendering socio-economic justice to those who in the hey-day of their life ceaselessly toiled for the employer on an assurance that in their old age they would not be left in lurch. Pension as a retirement benefit is in consonance with and furtherance of the goals of the Constitution. The most practical raison d'etre for pension is the inability to provide for oneself due to old age. It creates a vested right and is governed by the statutory rules such as the Central Civil Services (Pension)
- 10 -
Rules which are enacted in exercise of power conferred by Articles 309 and 148(5) of the Constitution."
13. On the ground of delay and laches in raising the dispute, the learned Counsel for the Union submitted that settlement between the parties does not bar the Union from agitating the genuine claim, as the dispute exists at the time of making reference. There was no limitation prescribed and that the Union is at liberty to make a reference at any time.
14. For the above proposition of law, the learned Counsel for the Union placed reliance in the case of Kuldeep Singh Vs. G.M.Instrument Design Development & Facilities Centre & Another reported in AIR 2011 SC
455. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed in the above case there is no prescribed time limit for the appropriate Government to exercise its powers under Section 10, but reference has to be made if dispute exists at the time of making reference. Reference once made Court
- 11 -
cannot go beyond order of reference. It is not open to the Government to go into the merit of the dispute concerned and once it is found that an industrial dispute exists then it is incumbent on the part of the Government to make reference. It is further held that the denial of relief to workmen on the ground that reference was incompetent, is improper.
15. In the instant case, admittedly, superannuation scheme was introduced in the year 1973. As per clause 33 (ii) of the settlement between the Company and the Union, the Union will not raise any other demand involving any extra financial commitment to the Company during the pendency of the agreement. It is also an admitted fact that the demand of the Union relating to the benefits under the superannuation scheme was not the subject matter of any of the settlements arrived at between the Company and the Union.
- 12 -
16. The Learned Single Judge modified the award passed by the Labour Court extending the benefit under the superannuation scheme from 30.04.1990 instead of 01.01.1986 awarded by the Tribunal to the workmen who are in service as on 01.01.1986, on the ground that the demand by the Union was for the first time in the year 1990, therefore, the benefit was extended from 30.04.1990 onwards.
17. The Labour Court as well as the learned Single Judge concurrently found that there is no justification for the Company in extending the scheme to certain workers and denying the same to other workers on income criteria and held that it is unjust and illegal, since the monthly wages of the workmen depends on the length of service, graduation, fitment etc. As per the Bonus Act, bonus is made applicable to all the workmen to all classes of employees irrespective of their monthly wages payable to them. There cannot be any discretion
- 13 -
between the workmen drawing monthly wages at Rs.2,500/- or more and who are drawing less than Rs.2,500/- p.m. Therefore, the benefit of superannuation Scheme shall be extended to all employees to maintain the uniformity of conditions of service. The Labour Court as well as the learned Single Judge are therefore justified in holding that all the eligible employees of the Union are entitled for the benefits under the superannuation scheme which is not covered under the Settlement between the Company and the Union, and the Union for the first time raised demand for superannuation scheme for implementation of scheme to all the employees in the year 1990. The learned Single Judge was justified in modifying the award passed by the Labour Court.
18. For the reasons stated above, we are of the considered view that there are no infirmities in the order of the learned Single Judge. The appeals filed by the
- 14 -
Company and the Union are therefore liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE JT/-