AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vinod k. Sharma, J.—The Petitioner seeks a writ, in nature of certiorari, to quash the impugned settlement, dated 29.01.2004, being arbitrary thus, violative under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
The undisputed facts are, that the Tamilnadu State Construction Corporation Limited, was incorporated in 1980, under the provisions of the Companies Act 1956. The Petitioner was appointed as watchman on daily wages on 2.5.1981 and continued as such till 05.03.1987.
The Petitioner in violation of the provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act, was relieved from services on 06.03.1987. The Petitioner, raised an industrial dispute before the learned Labour Court, Madurai.
The reference was ordered in favour of the Petitioner, vide award of the learned Labour Court, dated 20th September 1981, holding therein that the Petitioner was entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages to extent of Rs. 10,000/-[Rupees Ten thousand only].
The 2nd Respondent challenged the award before this Court, vide W.P. No. 5017 of 1992, which was dismissed on 24th September 1999.
The Respondents Corporation also filed SLP before the Hon''ble Supreme Court.
After the Respondents failed upto Hon''ble Supreme Court, the Petitioner was reinstated in service with effect from 23.10.2000, on causal basis, at fixed wages of Rs. 63/- per day plus Dearness Allowance as per the Minimum Wages Act.
Even though, appointment of daily wages was patently contrary to the order passed by the Labour Court, the Petitioner being a poor workman, reported for duty and accepted daily wage appointment.
It is the case of the Petitioner, that on 16th October 2003, the Petitioner was informed, that his services were regularized with effect from 01.10.2003 and he was the permanent employee of the Corporation.
The Petitioner, gave his consent for the regular appointment.
That on 29.01.2004, the Petitioner was called in the office of the 2nd Respondent, and was asked to sign two papers, i.e. (i) Memorandum of Settlement u/s 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 & Form B under Rule 25(1); and a willingness letter to go on v.
The case of the Petitioner is that he had objected to signing of the papers. This fact is disputed by the management. The writ therefore raises a disputed question of fact.
In view of the dispute on facts, under normal circumstances, the Petitioner should have been delegated to ordinary remedy under the Industrial Dispute Act. However, in view of the stand of the Petitioner, that he does not oppose the settlement under VRS, provided, he is granted annual increment, instead of one increment in every three years as stipulated in the settlement. Therefore, the matter is being decided on merits.
The question to be determined, therefore is, whether employee which granted VRS benefits can fix an increment every three years.
The contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, is that as per Standing Order and the Service Rules applicable, the employees are entitled to annual increment, therefore, impugned part of the settlement being contrary to the Standing Order cannot be sustained in law.
The writ petition is opposed to by the learned Counsel for the Management, primarily on the ground, that once settlement has been agreed to by the Petitioner u/s 18(1) of the Industrial Dispute Act, it has the statutory force, therefore, it is not open to the Petitioner, to agitate the matter before this Court, by way of writ.
On consideration, I find force in the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the workman/Petitioner.
The settlement u/s 18(1) of the Industrial Dispute Act, is statutory in nature, however, if the settlement on the face of it arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, that can always be set aside, by this Court in exercising of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
It cannot be disputed, that the admitted facts clearly show, that the Petitioner has not been treated fairly, in spite of award of the Labour Court, ordering reinstatement of the Petitioner with continuing service, he was offered employment on daily wages basis, thereafter on regularizing service, he was offered VRS, under settlement, the clause of which go contrary to certified standing order and service condition.
It is well settled, that VRS scheme is to be more beneficial and offer better terms than the normal service conditions so as to attract the employees to offer v. The VRS scheme cannot be framed to defeat the rights of the employee, to which he entitled to under service conditions. It cannot be accepted that an employee would accept VRS which does not even take care of normal benefits like increment etc.
It is not disputed, that under the Standing Orders and service rules, an employee is entitled to annual increment, therefore, there can be No. authority with the Management, to impose a condition, that the Petitioner will only be entitled to increment after every three years of service. Whereas, in the case of other employees, the benefit of annual increment has been granted. The impugned part of settlement under challenge is also documentary thus hit by Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India.
Consequently, the writ petition is partly allowed. While upholding the settlement, between the parties, it is directed that the Petitioner shall be entitled to benefits of annual increment, instead of increment every three years.
The benefit accruing from this order, shall be released to the Petitioner within a period of two months of receipt of certified copy of this order.
In case, the payment is not released within the stipulated period, the Petitioner shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% p.a., on the amount due, from the date of settlement till realization. No. costs.