AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Ramaswamy, J.—I am constrained to interfere with the order impugned in this writ petition even at the threshold stage. The petitioner is the management. There is a charter of demands made by the majority union on April 14,1986 and pursuant to which proceedings u/s 12(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ''the Act'') were initiated by the Commissioner of Labour resulting in settlement u/s 12(3). The Settlement was signed on May 13,1987 by the President, Vice-President, Secretary of the Union, two persons on behalf of the management and the Commissioner of Labour incorporating various terms including rationalization of the work load, reorganization of the departments and the consequential designations of the employees. After the settlement was singed, it would be binding and operative by operation of Section 18(3) of the Act for a period of three years starting from May 13,1987 to May 12,1990. It is also the case of the petitioner that the settlement was implemented on June 16, 1987. Shortly thereafter viz., on June 22, 1987 seven workmen, whose designations have been affected as a result of the settlement, filed W.P.No. 8132 of 1987 for a declaration that the settlement dated May 13,1987 is null and void in so far as the change in their designations. That writ petition was disposed of on July, 6,1987 with a direction to the Commissioner of Labour to take action under the Act and the petitioners should be given an opportunity to file an application before the Commissioner for appropriate remedy. Thereupon, the minority union filed a petition on behalf of the seven workmen (petitioners in W.P.No. 8132 of 1987) and 12 others totalling 19 workmen. Thereafter the minority union became the majority union and it espoused the cause of 19 workmen by their respresentation dated July 11,1987 to the Commissioner of Labour to initiate conciliation proceedings. The Commissioner of Labour by his letter dated December 10, 1987 submitted his report regarding the failure of conciliation to the Government. The Government in consideration of the material before it and in exercise of its powers u/s 10 of the Act, passed the following order on April 12,1988:
"I am directed to state that the representation first cited has been examined by the Government and they consider that the demand of the Union does not merit reference for adjudication as the change effected by the Management is in sequence to the agreement reached by the Management and majority Union u/s 12(3) read with Section 18(3) which is a binding settlement on all workmen."
Thereafter one Mr. S.Rajeshwar, M.L.A. Sanathnagar addressed a letter dated July 20,1988, to the Minister of Labour thus:
"Sir, it is understood that these 7 workmen have approached the High Court as they were of the original designation in which they were working all these years. The Court has directed the General Manager of the above spinning Mills to continue these workmen with their old designations vide Court order dated 23-6-1987 (copy enclosed.)
As such the General Manager, of the Netha Spinning Mills, Lower Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad may be asked to take back these employees as directed by the Court."
Pursuant to this letter the Government passed the order in the impugned G.O.Rt.No. 467 dated October 12, 1988 wherein the Government have stated that it exercised the power u/s 10(1)(d) of the Act and referred the following dispute for adjudication:
"Whether the management of M/s Netha Spinning Mills, Secunderabad is justified in effecting a change in the designation of the following workmen:
(Details are not necessary for the purpose of this petition)"
If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled?
Assailing the jurisdiction of the Government in making this reference, the present writ petition has been filed.
The contention of Sri Manohar, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the settlement dated May 13,1987 binds the union of the workmen, that so long as the settlement is in force, the workmen are precluded from reagitating the dispute which was settled between the parties, that the change of designation of the workmen is one of the items of the dispute and that it was agreed to between them and the same was also implemented. The Government on receipt of the failure report from the Commissioner of Labour on April 12,1988 refused to make a reference holding that the settlement is binding on the union and the management and during the period of settlement i t is not open to the Government to make any reference. Having stated so, the Government cannot make the reference contrary to the earlier order.
Sri A.K. Jayaprakash Rao, learned counsel for the contesting union vehemently resisted the above contentions. He stated that the workmen have been agitating for the change of designation of their posts since a long time and in the writ petition disposed of earlier there was a direction by this Court to effect changes after consultation and take appropriate action accordingly that though the workmen approached the management their request for redesignation of the posts was not considered that therefore the workmen approached the local M.L.A. and submitted a representation through him to the Government. The Government considered the matter and made the reference accordingly and it is not now open to assail the same. This contention is also supported by the Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent.
The question therefore is whether the Government is justified on the facts and in the circumstances to make a reference u/s 10(1) of the Act with regard to one of the items of the settlement dated May 13,1987 viz; change of designation of the posts of the persons specified in the impugned G.O. It is not in dispute that the majority union submitted a charter of demands for rationalization of the departments and the posts. That was thrashed out in the conciliation proceedings initiated by the Commissioner of Labour and both the management and the Union have agreed to the settlement and signed the settlement u/s 12(3) of the Act on May 13,1987. Therefore, it would be binding not only one the union but all the workmen during the currency of the period of settlement by operation of Section 18(3) read with Section 19(2) of the Act. The change of designation of the posts is consequential to the reorganisation of the departments. In the reply affidavit filed by the management it is stated that the change of designation is not detrimental to the workmen. The earlier posts of Jobber and the Helpers are redesignated as Doffing Jobbers and the supervision of the spinning department was equally distributed. It is not detrimental to the workmen. The workmen in addition to the existing wages as a result of rationalization on getting benefit of Rs. 78/- per month with less work load and same status. This is disputed by the seven workmen who are agitating their rights right from the inception of the signing of the settlement. Be that as it may, so long as the-settlement is in force and not vitiated by any manifest error of law and not illegal, it binds not only the union but all the workmen be it a majority union or a minority one. Inline circumstances the Government having upheld the settlement and declined to make a reference by proceedings dated April 12, 1988 is no longer open to make the self-same reference without any additional reasons. No such material is placed before me to make the reference or the changed circumstances. I do not find any justifiable ground in making the reference for adjudication. Sri Manohar has fairly stated that the management is prepared to take back the seven workmen for whom the M.L.A. has also requested the management to take back into service in their redesignated posts viz; Doffing Jobber etc. The workmen are at liberty to joint the posts immediately. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with the above observation. The absence of duty by the seven workmen would be leniently considered by the management. No costs. Advocate''s fee Rs. 350/-.