AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Tarun Shridhar, Member (A)
We have joined this Bench online through video conferencing facility.
Shri Udayan Nandan, ld. counsel for the applicant and Shri D.S. Shukla, ld. counsel for the respondents are present online through video
conferencing.
At the outset, ld. counsel for the respondents mentions that he has filed an M.A. No. 145 of 2022 in which he states that there has been across the
table discussion between the applicant which is an association/union of the workers and the respondents’ authority and the matter has been
amicably sorted out. He draws attentions to para-5 of this M.A. which contains the names of representatives of the union who participated in the said
discussion.
Ld. counsel for the applicants rebuts this arguments stating that there has been no negotiation or decision in the matter and he would strongly
contest the statement made by the ld. counsel for the respondents that the parties have arrived at a settlement. Ld. counsel for the applicants further
argues that the respondents have decided to close/disband the Ordnance Depot, Cheoki without following the statutory provisions of Rule 25 of the
Industrial Disputes Act.
On a specific query made by us, he goes on to clarify that the matter is squarely covered under Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act,
because due to disbandment of the Cheoki unit, the conditions of the service of the applicants has been adversely affected and hence the matter has to
be adjudicated upon by this Tribunal.
We are not inclined to accept either of the arguments of the ld. counsel for the applicants. It is evident that there is an industrial dispute between the
parties. Whether they have sat across the table or not and whether the statutory provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act have been followed or not,
does not come in our jurisdiction.
The ld. counsel for the applicants clarifies that the condition of service of the applicants has been affected by virtue of their transfers and
dislocation from their present place of posting, and also their deployments to the other units thus, disrupting their family life besides adversely affecting
their promotional prospects. But a perusal of the O.A. transpires that most of the grounds taken by the applicants to assail the order flow out of the
Industrial Dispute Act and the dispute cannot be said to be a service matter as it is the outcome of a policy decision taken by the Government of India.
This Tribunal would have jurisdiction if subsequent to the closure of the industrial establishment the conditions of service of the employees gets
affected to their detriment. In this case, it is nowhere stated or contested that either their pay scale or their positions have been changed to their
disadvantage. The mere affect on the employees is their transfer from their present place of posting which in the current circumstances is inevitable
as the establishment has since been closed.
We are very clear that we have no jurisdiction in the matter as this Tribunal cannot interfere in the decision of running or closing an industrial
establishment. Moreover, if anything this falls squarely in the definition of an industrial dispute in which this Tribunal cannot and should not interfere.
In view of the above, the O.A. stands dismissed. Needless to say the interim order, granted earlier, stands vacated. All the pending MAs are also
disposed of as having become infructuous.
No order as to cost.