Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The management in I.D. No.25/92 before the Industrial Tribunal, Kollam is challenging Ext.P1 award passed by the Tribunal in that dispute. The dispute related to seven demands made by the Union. Challenge in this original petition is only in respect of demand numbers 1 and 5. For dealing with these issues brief facts are necessary. The workers represented by the Union, the 1st respondent herein, were the workers of erstwhile Kerala Fisheries Corporation(KFC for short). KFC was wound up and the employees were absorbed in the Fisheries Department of the Government and the Kerala Matsyafed. 49 employees were absorbed in the Kerala Fisheries Department and 140 employees were absorbed in the Kerala Matsyafed. It appears that the employees, who were absorbed in the Department of Fisheries, Kerala, were given pay revision benefits with effect from 1.7.1988. However, the 140 employees, who were absorbed in the Matsyafed were given pay revision benefits declared by Government Order dated 12.4.1991 only with effect from 1.9.1990. These 140 employees demanded that they should also be treated like those absorbed in the Fisheries Department of Kerala Government and they should be given pay revision benefits with effect from 1.10.1988. This was demand no.1. The second was demand for casual leave. Since these 140 employees  were enjoying 20 days' casual leave at KFC and since certain persons, who had been deputed to Matsyafed, were also enjoying 20 days' casual leave as in their parent department, these 140 employees also demanded that they should be given 20 days' casual leave. Both these claims found favour with the Tribunal and Tribunal directed that just like the 49 persons, who were absorbed in the Fisheries Department of Kerala Government, these 140 employees also should be given pay revision benefits with effect from the date of joining in Matsyafed namely, 1.10.1988. So also the Tribunal found that these 140 employees would be entitled to 20 days' causal leave, which they were enjoying at KFC since certain employees, who were deputed to Matsyafed were also enjoying 20 days' casual leave. These two findings of the Industrial Tribunal are challenged in this original petition at the instance of the management.

2. The contention of the petitioner management is that once these 140 employees have been integrated as employees of the Matsyafed they could not claim any benefit other than those given to the regular employees of the Matsyafed since otherwise there would be two classes of employees in Matsyafed deriving different benefits of pay revision with effect from two different dates, which cannot be permitted. In answer to this, the counsel for the Union submits that at the time of absorption of the 140 employees in the Matsyafed, there was an understanding that their conditions of service in KFC would be protected. Since at the time of absorption in Matsyafed on 1.10.1988, there were serious irregularities in their fixation of pay, the same  only has been regularized by granting them pay revision benefits with effect from 1.10.1988, they submit.

3. But on consideration of the award in question, it is clear that this is not what the Tribunal has decided. The Tribunal has equated these 140 employees with the 49 employees, who were absorbed in the Fisheries Department and since they got pay revision benefits with effect from 1.7.1988, the Tribunal held that similar treatment has to be meeted out to these 140 employees, who were absorbed in Matsyafed. I am of opinion that once these 140 employees were absorbed in Matsyafed on 1.10.1988 they became regular employees of Matsyafed from that date. Therefore, when pay revision benefits are granted to employees of Matsyafed, these 140 employees would also be entitled to only those benefits, which were granted to other employees of Matsyafed, who were already in service before the 140 employees were absorbed in Matsyafed. Nothing more nothing less. Simply because the 49 employees of KFC, who opted to join the Fisheries Department got better benefits that does not ipso facto make the employees, who opted to join the Matsyafed to claim the very same benefits. Once they have opted to the respective establishments they would become employees of those establishments and they would not be entitled to get more what regular employees of those establishments were entitled to. As such, in this case, I am satisfied that the Tribunal has went wrong in equating these 140 employees with the other 49 employees, who opted to join the Kerala Fisheries Department to grant them pay revision benefits with effect from 1.10.1988. However, learned counsel for the 1st respondent Union submits that these 140 employees did not actually get the very same treatment as  the regular employees of the Matsyafed. I make it clear that if that be so, no doubt these 140 employees would be entitled to the very same benefits of pay revision, which the regular employees of the Matsyafed got that too with effect from the date the regular employees of the Matsyafed got the pay revision benefits.

4. Regarding the demand for the casual leave, the learned counsel for the petitioner management submits that the regular employees of the Matsyafed are entitled to only 15 days' casual leave and the 140 employees are claiming 20 days' casual leave. The Tribunal has allowed their claim on the ground that some employees, who were sent on deputation to Matsyafed have given 20 days' causal leave. The learned counsel for the Union submits that the management has not produced any document to show that the regular employees of the Matsyafed are getting only 15 days' casual leave. In this case also, I make it clear that the 140 employees, who were absorbed from KFC, would also be entitled to all leave benefits just like the regular employees of Matsyafed. The original petition is allowed as above without any order of cost. In respect of other grievances, if any, of the 140 employees it would be open to them or the Union representing them to approach the Government for appropriate reliefs as directed in the award itself.