The State of Punjab vs Sh. Amar Nath and others

Sukhdev Singh Kang, J.—In this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the State of Punjab and General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Jullurdur, prayed for issuance of writ of certiorari, quashing order dated August 1, 1977, of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jullundur, allowing the applications made by Respondent-workmen u/s 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ''the Act'').

A brief reference to the facts will illumine the contours of the pristinely legal controversy raised in this writ petition. Anand Nath and 8 other superannuated employees of the Punjab Road ways, Jullundur, filed applications u/s 33 C(2) of the Act claiming that they were employees of the Punjab Government and were governed by the Punjab Civil Service Rules Volume II (for short ''the Rules''). Under Rule 6.l6C(b)of the Rules, they were entitled to gratuity equal to one month''s pay for each completed year of their service with the Punjab Roadways The same should be ascertained and the Petitioner employers be directed to pay the same. The Central Manager Roadways Jullundur and Secretary to Government Punjab in the Transport Department-the present Petitioners, were impleaded as Respondents 1 and 2 in these applications They appeared in Court and contested these applications. They filed written statements and raised a number of pleas inter alia that they were not governed by the provisions of Civil Service Rules and that the workmen were entitled to gratuity equal to 15th days'' pay for each completed year of service but subject to a ceiling of consolidated wages equal to 7-1/2 months, in view of the decision of the State Government dated February 25, 1972. The applications were not competent because the workmen had no existing right to claim gratuity. The pleadings of the parties gave rise to the following issues:-

Whether there is an existing right to sustain the claim ?

Whether the application is otherwise not maintainable ?

What amount, if any is due to each applicant ?

Relief.

The Labour Court decided issues Nos. 1 and 2 in favour of the workmen and held issue No. 3 against the employers. The application were allowed and the Respondent Petitioners were directed to way gratuity to the Respondents at the rate prescribed by Rule 616C(b) of the Rules. The Labour Court did not accept the plea of the Petitioners that the workmen were not governed by the Rules or that their services were governed by Standing Orders and in the matter of gratuity they were governed by the orders contained in letter dated February 25, 1972 issued by the Punjab Government. Aggrieved by this order, the Petitioners have filed this petition.

It has been argued by Shri H.S. Riar, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, that the workmen-Respondents were not covered by the provisions of Chapter VI of the Rules (Rule 6.16.C(b) is contained in this Chapter). They are governed by Chapter XIV of the Rules. In accordance with the provisions thereof, the Respondents accepted the Punjab Contributory Provident Funds Scheme and became its members voluntarily. They were not confirmed against permanent pension able posts They had been contributing their share to the Scheme and after superannuation received the full benefits accruing to them under the Scheme. They had been paid gratuity equal to 15 days for each completed year of service subject to a ceiling of 7-1/2 months wages, as provided under the Punjab Government Order dated February 25, 1972. The workmen-Respondents were covered by a settlement dated January 22, 1967 entered into between the representatives of the workers of the Punjab Roadways and the Punjab Government. This settlement also provided for the payment of gratuity to the superannuated employees equal to 15 days pay for each completed year of service subject to a maximum of 7-1/2 months wages. The workmen-Respondents were not entitled to anything over and above this gratuity.

The Petitioners have in their writ petition averred that the Respondent-workmen were not covered by the provisions of Chapter VI of the Rules but were covered by Chapter XIV thereof. The Petitioners'' witness Shri Des Raj, an Assistant in the office of the Petitioners, admitted that in the matter of disciplinary action, the Respondent-workmen were governed by the Punjab Civil Service Rules. The Labour Court has held that the Respondent-workers were governed by the Civil Service Rules and more particularly by Rule 6.l6-C(b). This-conclusion was fully justified on, the basis of the material placed before the Labour Court. The Petitioners have not produced any orders showing that only the provisions of Chapter XIV of the Rules relating to disciplinary proceedings have been made applicable to the employees of Punjab Roadways. In the absence of such an order, the Labour Court was justified in assuming that the Civil Service Rules were applicable to the workers in their entirety.

The Petitioners did not rely on the settlement dated 22nd January, 1967 before the Labour Court. It was not produced before that Court. Therefore, the Petitioners cannot be allowed to raise any argument on the basis of this settlement. It is admitted by Shri Riar that none of the workmen-Respondent was a party to the settlement. They were not associated with the negotiations culminating in the settlement. This settlement cannot be treated to be an agreement entered into between workmen and the employers regulating their emoluments and conditions of service as envisaged by Rule 1.4 of the Punjab Civil Service Rules, Volume I Part I. The Respondent-workmen have not signed this settlement. It does not specifically say that the Respondent-workers have accepted it. A settlement can be binding u/s (sic)8 of the Act but if cannot be equated with an agreement as envisaged in Rule 1.4. So the conditions of the Respondents'' service were not governed by the settlement. The letter dated February 25, 1972 has been issued in exercise of the executive powers of the Government. It cannot override the statutory service Rules The Service Rules are more beneficial to the workmen than the order of the State Government. This order cannot operate to the detriment of the workmen-Respondents

Rules contained in Chapter XIV did not expressly or by necessary intendment say that the persons covered by the Punjab Contributory Provident Funds Scheme will not be governed by the provisions of Chapter VI of the Rules. The fact that the Respondent-workmen contributed to the Scheme will not disentitle them from benefits available to them under the Rules. It cannot be accepted that by entering into a settlement, the workmen of the Punjab Roadways were not entitled to gratuity at higher rates. Mr. Riar referred to M.S.C., Employees Union v. Commr. of Labour l968 L.I.C. 74, in support of his contention that an agreement made by workers accreting wages less than the minimum prescribed by law was not void. In the above case., it has been observed in para 27 of the report, that a second settlement did not alter the wage structure to the disadvantage of the workmen. Further-more, the second settlement had been entered into by the representatives of the workmen in order to avoid lay off. The employer and the employees agreed that if the Company did not resort to any lay off, the workmen will sacrifice a part of their emoluments. No such thing happened in the present case. Mr. Riar has also relied on M.G. Jadhav v. M.W. Bapat 1983 L.I.C. 1044. It was a case decided on its own facts. Therein the reduction in the wages was made by the Union with the consent of the workmen. It was not made by the employer. For that reason that reduction was upheld.

As a result, I find no merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed with costs. Counsel fee Rs. 300/- .