AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Chandru
The writ petition is filed by the petitioner Central Bank of India represented by its Regional Manager, Chennai challenging an award passed by
the 1st respondent Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court (for short ''CGIT''). By the impugned award, the CGIT directed
that the payment of arrears of salary with attendant benefits to the 14 Safai Karmacharies concerned in the Dispute as per the settlement dated
28.11.1997 was legal and the workmen are entitled to get arrears of salary. The writ petition was admitted on 2.1.2008. Pending the writ petition,
this Court granted interim stay. Subsequently, the interim stay was made absolute on 27.1.2002 and the vacate stay application was dismissed.
The case of the 2nd respondent trade union was that on 28.11.1997, the 2nd respondent union along with the other unions entered into a
settlement u/s 18(1) of I.D.Act regarding enhancement of wages to part-time employees employed in the Bank. After the settlement was signed,
the management bank issued a circular dated 10.12.1997 incorporating the terms of the settlement. Following the circular of the Central Office, the
Regional Office also issued a consequential circular on 18.9.1999. By the said settlement dated 28.11.1997, the wages of part-time employees
were settled, which is as follows:
a) From 1.11.1992 to 31.10.1994
Upto 3 hours Rs.130/- p.m
more than 3 hours but less than 6 hoursRs.375/- p.m
b) From 1.11.1994
Upto 3 hours Rs.150/- p.m
more than 3 hours but less than 6 Rs.440/- p.m
hours
Subsequent to the settlement dated 28.11.1997, another bipartite settlement dated 27.3.2000 was also arrived at revising the part time wages with
effect from 1.11.1997. In that settlement, the following made:
Upto 3 hours Minimum of
Rs.450/- p.m
more than 3 hours but less than 6 Rs.440/- p.m
hours
But, though they have agreed to revise the wages, they did not pay the enhanced wages and all the 14 employees who were appointed as Safai
Karmacharies were not given the benefit of revision. Despite union making recommendation, the bank did not comply with the same. Therefore,
the union raised a dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Chennai and he sent a failure report dated 27.1.2002 to the
Central Government and the Central Government through the Ministry of Labour vide order dated 20.10.2004 referred the following dispute for
adjudication along with the list of employees:
Whether the claim of Central Bank of India Employees'' Union for payment of arrears with all attendant benefits to the 14 Safai Karmacharies (As
in Annexure) as per the IBA settlement by the management of Central Bank of India is legal and justified"" If not, what relief the workmen are
entitled to?
List of employees:
N.P.Pabhavathy
C.Kanchana
Rajina Rani
Kondammal
Rajeswari
Suguna
Mariamma
Nagammal
Adilakshmi
Kanthammal
Raniammal
Alamelu
Rajendran
Dhavamani
The CGIT registered the dispute as I.D.No.422 of 2004 and issued notice to the parties. The 2nd respondent union filed a claim statement
dated 19.1.2005. The management filed a counter statement dated 9.4.2005. In the counter statement, it was contented that the casual workers
who are doing the cleaning work in the Bank are not paid wages on par with Safai Karmacharies. In respect of 14 persons, whose names are
found in the annexure to the order of reference, in para 7 of the counter it was stated as follows:
It is submitted that out of 14 persons mentioned in the annexure to the order of reference, N.P.Prabavathy who was made a regular Safai
Karmachari from 27.7.1996 and was made as part-time Safai Karmachari on scale of wages from 27.1.1998 was paid arrears of wages based on
settlement dated 28.11.1997 for the period from 27.7.1996. She is not entitled to any arrears for the period prior to 27.7.1996. Similarly,
Mrs.Kanchana was absorbed as regular part time Safai Karmachari from 27.7.1996 and she was also paid arrears as from that date. Regarding
Mrs.Regina Rani, she was appointed as regular part time Safai Karmachari on consolidate wages from 5.11.1999 and subsequently she was
elevated on scale of wages from 11.2.2000. As from 5.11.1999 she was paid wages as applicable to part time Safai Karmachari. In fact she has
given a letter dated 5.11.1999 stating that she will not make any claim for arrears of wages in terms of settlement dated 28.11.1997. The other
persons mentioned in the annexure to the order of reference would not have worked as regular part time Safai Karmachari during the period from
1.11.1992 and therefore, they would not be entitled to the enhanced wages as per settlement dated 28.11.1997. They are, therefore, not entitled
to any arrears of wages.
Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the workmen, one K.Venkatesan was examined as W.W.1. On the side of the workmen, 24 documents were
filed and marked as Ex.W.1 to Ex.W.24. On the side of the management, one K.V.S.Subramanian was examined as M.W.1 and on their side, 32
documents were filed and marked as Ex.M.1 to Ex.M.32.
The Labour Court on the basis of the materials came to the conclusion that the denial of wages to the 14 part time employees is nothing but a
clear case of unfair labour practice. Hence, they are eligible for enhanced wages together with arrears.
The Management also filed an affidavit dated _nil_ (February 2012) stating that copies of the two settlements dated 10.4.1989 and 28.11.1997
were not filed before the CGIT, though the order of reference clearly referred to the settlement between the parties and the rights of the workmen
flow only from the said settlement. Hence the copies of those settlements should have been received by this Court. Therefore, by way of an
additional affidavit, those settlements were taken on file and were also perused.
The contentions raised by the Bank was that 14 Safai Karmacharies mentioned in the order of reference were regularised after 1996 and
regularisation was given by issuing letters of appointment and thereafter they were paid wages as per the settlement in the scale of pay depending
upon the work. The bank had employed the casual labourers. As far as the claim in respect of 14 Safai Karmacharies for wages before 1996 is
concerned, the settlement under which reliance was placed upon has clearly held that it is from 1.11.1992 to 31.10.1994 wages were given and
from 1.11.1994 revised wages were also given, whereas 14 workers were regularised during 1997 and they were paid arrears of wages from the
date of their appointment. They were not eligible for the benefit of settlement, as the clause referred to by them will not apply and if any such
interpretation is given, as given by the CGIT, it would amount to extending the benefits of settlement for the workmen, who are not otherwise
eligible for such an inclusion.
Since the stand of the petitioner management is fully justified and since the workmen represented by the union have already got the benefit, they
cannot have a second benefit by the impugned award. In the light of the same, the impugned awards suffers from material irregularities and non-
application of mind. Hence, the Writ Petition stands allowed. The impugned award stands set aside. However, there will be no order as to costs.