Haldia-Calcutta Port and Dock Shramik Union vs Union of India (UOI)

Susanta Chatterji, J.—The present writ petition has been filed by Haldia-Calcutta Port Dock Shramik Union, Bharatiya Port Dock Majdur Sangha and six individuals being the office-bearers of the aforesaid unions praying, inter alia, for an appropriate writ challenging the decision of the Respondent Port Trust Authority debarring and/or disallowing the Petitioner to participate in the negotiations for wage revision and restrain the Respondents from entering into settlement and/or agreement with other federations of Dock and Board employees without giving any opportunity to make an effective representation in the negotiations of wage revision and to come to the terms and conditions arrived at the said negotiations and oilier consequential reliefs. Pending the decision of this Court, it is stated in detail, that the Respondents authorities did deny the benefit of house rent allowance to the allottees of class III employees and they continued their acts of realisation of rent for housing accommodation by making deductions from the salary of the employees. It is stated further that the Petitioners, union on behalf of the allottees of the housing accommodation protested against the action of the Respondent authority for introducing any arbitrary and unreasonable clause to the alleged bipartite settlement dated April 11, 1984. There is allegation against the Respondent authority for not considering the case of the Petitioners in the proper perspective. It is alleged that the Petitioners'' union being the listed trade union of employees of the Port and Dock had the rights to raise demands and/or disputes on behalf of the employees of the Port and Dock Union. The Respondent cannot deny the opportunity to the Petitioners to participate at the time of negotiations of wage revision of class III and class IV employees and to obtain the reliefs on their behalf. There are various allegations of illegal labour practice and the acts done and/or caused to have been done by the Respondent, are irregular and illegal. Developing all these facts the Petitioners have sought the reliefs in the manner as indicated above.

The writ petition is contested by the Respondents by filing affidavits. An affidavit sworn by the Labour and Industrial Relations Officer of the Port Trust Authority, Calcutta, in which it is placed on record that there are ten operating major ports, viz., Bombay, Calcutta, Cochin, Kundla, Marmagoan, Vishakapattanam, New Mangalore, Paradip and Tuticorin. There are seven Dock Labour Boards, viz., Bombay, Calcutta, Cochin, Kundla, Madras, Mangalore and Vishakapattanam. It is alleged that the number of employees in the aforesaid Port and Dock Labour Boards is about 1.3 lakhs. On the basis of the recommendations of the Central Wage Board the services and the service conditions of Port and Dock Workers were determined with effect from January 1, 1969, and the same were revised on the basis of the recommendations of the Wage Revision Committee for the Port and Dock workers from January 1, 1974. It is further placed on record that the recommendation of the Wage Revision Committee was however implemented after settlement signed on July 14, 1977, with the representatives of four federations, viz, Indian Port and Dock Workers Federation, Indian National Port and Dock Workers Federation, Port, Dock and Waterfront Workers Federation of India and Water Transport Workers Federation. Subsequently, by an agreement entered into by and between Union of India and the said four major federations of Port and Dock workers, the wage revision was made effective from January 1, 1980 and again on and from January 1, 1984. The last wage revision settlement expired on December 31. 1987, and was due for revision from January 1, 1988. It is contended that the aforesaid lour federations of Port and Dock workers on November 16, 1987, submitted a joint charter of demands before the Central Government. The unions of Port and Dock workers affiliated to these four federations served the same charter and, in order to arrive at a new settlement, negotiations are being held between the employees, comprising the major Port Trusts, Dock Labour Boards and the Federations of Associations of Stevedors on the one side and the representatives of Port and Dock workers on the other side. At all points of time such bipartite negotiations were held between Union of India and the four federations. Apart from one settlement, various other negotiations have already been held with the foresaid four federations and the settlements arrived at in course of negotiations with the said four major federations have already been implemented. There are large number of unions throughout the country and, as such, no individual union is invited to discussion at the apex level. It has been decided that the federations having the majority support of the employees will be invited in wage negotiations but not the individual unions. In the background of such facts and circumstances the allegations of the writ Petitioners have been denied and locus standi of the Petitioners has been challenged.

There is another affidavit on behalf of the Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Surface Transport. He has placed on record that the recommendation of the Wage Revision Committee was implemented after a settlement was signed on July 4, 1977, with the representatives of the four federations as already indicated and the subsequent wage revisions effective from January 1, 1980, and January 1, 1986, were the results of the settlement between the Government of India and the four major federations of Port and Dock workers as referred to hereinabove. The last wage settlement expired on December 31, 1987, and the revision of wage was due on and from January 1, 1988. He has denied that the writ Petitioner No. 1 has got the representative character having its substantial membership in Calcutta Port Trust, i.e. Respondent No. 2 and that it enjoins legal authority to represent employees of the Respondent No. 2 in appropriate levels. In particular, it is alleged that the writ Petitioner No. 1 has been listed under the Trade Union Act in the year 1985 with some of the members or followers of Calcutta Port Shramik Union which was a party in all the settlements mentioned in the said affidavit. Besides, it is denied that the Petitioners held the large number of workers of different major ports as alleged. Attention of the Court has also been drawn to the fact that previously settlement was arrived at in January 1980 between the Government of India and the four federations of the Port and Dock workers which remained operative from January 1, 1980 till December 31, 1983. During these periods the occupants of the class IV quarters were required to pay house rent to the Calcutta Port Trust according to the rate prescribed in the tripartite settlement dated December 10, 1973. the settlement arrived at on April 11, 1986 referred to above came into force with effect from January 1, 1984, and in terms of Clause 13 of the said settlement class IV employees who are occupants of class IV quarters were allowed to enjoy rent-free as was in practice prior to January 1974. A chart, however, is given about the percentage of basic pay in the pre-revised pay scale for the years 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987 in various major ports of India. It is further contended that merely as consequence of increase in the basic pay in the revised scale, there will not be any change in regard to the eligibility of employees for allotment of quarters. Rent will be recovered on the basis of pay in the pre-revised scale from time to time plus fixed special allowance appropriate to pay. There must be distinction between the two terminology, viz., m(i) house rent allowance, (ii) accommodation charges for the housing accommodation. It is highlighted with much emphasis that the Petitioner unions have no right to stall the negotiations in respect of 1.3 Lakhs of workers employed in the various Ports and Dock Labour Board of India.

There is, however, an affidavit-in-reply on behalf of the writ Petitioners controverting the allegations made in the affidavit-in-opposition and reiterating the points stated in the main petition.

Having heard the learned Advocates of the respective parties this Court finds that certain dates are relevant for the purpose of effective adjudication in the matter in dispute.

It will appear from the record further that on January 1, 1969 the wages and service conditions of the Port and Dock workers were determined on the basis of the recommendation of the Central Wage Board. On January 1, 1974, wages and service conditions of the Port and Dock workers were revised on the basis of recommendations of the Wages Revision Committee for the Port and Dock workers. On July 14, 1977, the recommendation of the Wage Revision Committee was implemented after settlement signed with the representatives of 4 major Federations. On January 1, 1980 agreement between the Union of India and the said 4 major Federation was arrived at providing the Wage revision. On April 11, 1984, there was an agreement and/or settlement between the Union of India and the said 4 major Federations whereby the wage revision was again made with effect from January 1, 1984. Class IV employees occupying quarters are not charged any rent or licence-fee by way of welfare measure. On November 16, 1987, the aforesaid 4 Federations submitted a general Charier of Demand to the Central Government and the Unions of Port and Dock Workers affiliated to those 4 Federations served the same charter on the respective Port Authorities.

In the background of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Committee comprising of the representatives from the Financial Advisor and Chief Accounts Officer''s Department, Chief Engineer''s Department and L.A. and I.R.O.''s Department was set up to review the classification of quarters made in the settlement of December 10, 1977, and the said Committee submitted its report and the said report is under consideration. It further transpires that the Calcutta Port Shramik Union, the Petitioner No. 1, was associated with All-India Port and Dock Workers Federation.

It is brought to the notice of the Court that there was a settlement on June 12, 19S9, between the representatives of the Management of Major Port Trust and Dock Labour Boards and the representatives of the said 4 Federations.

It is mainly submitted by the Calcutta Port Trust Authority that the Trade Unions arc classified as representative union and non-representative union. To become a representative union it must qualify according to the percentage of the membership. A representative union must have higher percentage of membership and it must have a right to represent the interest of the membership as considered by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Raja Kulkarni v. The State of Bombay AIR 1954 S.C. 73. Several other decisions have been cited in support of the contention that the Petitioners do not enjoy the higher percentage of membership and they have got no right to ventilate their grievances in the manner as canvassed in the present writ petition. The writ petition is otherwise misconceived and should be disposed of accordingly, as submitted on behalf of the Respondents.

The Petitioner No. 1 union is the local union affiliated to the Petitioner No. 2 having members and the Respondents did not sit with the Federation to which the Petitioner No. 1 is affiliated as they do not haw an all-India base and/or representative capacity. If an individual union like the Petitioners having small number of members, is allowed to participate in the negotiation, there will be an anomalous situation and the voice of several other unions cannot be shut down.

The argument on behalf of the Union of India is that on merit the Petitioners have no case and the locus standi of the Petitioners is also challenged.

Regard being had to the materials on record and considering the matter in depth this Court finds that only two questions are relevant for effective adjudication of the matter in dispute; one is whether the Petitioners have got any locus standi and/or right to participate in the negotiations at the time of wage revision and/or to support the demands with regard to housing allowance and other claims and the other is whether the points raised by the writ Petitioners have any merit and should, be considered by the respective authorities at the time of negotiations and/or settlement as disclosed, by the Respondent authorities.

Admittedly, the Petitioner No. 1 is a registered Trade Union under Trade Union Act, 1926. The Petitioner No. 2 is admittedly a Federation under which the Petitioner No. 1 is affiliated. The Petitioner No. 2 has also been formed under the statutory provision. This Court finds that the grievances of the Petitioners as to the scarcity of housing accommodation and the benefits to be given to the class III and class IV employees have got merits to be considered in the proper perspective. This Court does not appreciate that while there being negotiation and/or settlement in the manner as provided under the statute the same can be effected only by 4 major Federations and by no other Federation having less number of members and/or having a limited base in certain ports and not having an all-India character. This view of the Union of India and/or Port Trust Authority cannot be appreciated by this Court in view of the scope of the major Port Trust Act and the scope of negotiation for settlement to revise the pay structure and/or revise the wages and other benefits which will widely affect all the employees under the ports in the country. This Court also does not appreciate that while there being negotiation at the apex level the Petitioner No. 1, Union, arid/or the Petitioner No. 2, a Federation, will not be permitted to participate and/or allow their voice to be heard because they have got no all-India character in the manner as alleged. The Respondents Authorities have not produced any material before this Court to convince that the Petitioner No. 1 being admittedly a trade union and the Petitioner No. 2 being a federation have lesser number of supporters forfeiting the right to raise their voice at the time of negotiation for arriving at a comprehensive settlement. While it is admitted that the Petitioner No. l is affiliated to a Federation and the Petitioner No. 2 being the Federation is not permitted to participate at the time of negotiation, the Petitioners must have genuine grievances and finding on other alternative to this, they could move this Court to adjudicate this matter to seek redress and reliefs as warranted under the law. Since this Court finds that the grievances raised by the Petitioners required a genuine consideration, they can certainly ask for relief from the Court to command the Respondents to permit them to participate at the time of negotiation to arrive at the settlement as admitted by the parties in their respective pleadings.

For the foregoing reasons this Court finds that there is sufficient merit in the writ petition and it is allowed to the extent that while steps should be taken to enter into a negotiation for arriving at a settlement relating to the revision of wages and consideration of payment of house rent allowance, the representatives of the Petitioner should be permitted to sit in the table of negotiation and their voices and/or views should be considered in the proper perspective.

The writ petition is thus disposed of.

There will be no order as to costs.

This judgment covers both the matters filed in the Original Side and Appellate Side.