IMPORTANT POINT
Subject to the modification of direction given by the Industrial Tribunal regarding promotion of the employees, arising from transfer of Transport Wing from TTD to APSRTC, the award made by the Tribunal is upheld as confirmed by the High Court, being within the scope of the reference and calls for no other interference.

Headnote:(i) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 -Sections 10(1)(d)-Industrial Dispute-Reference to Tribunal-The Transport Wing of T.T.D. was transferred to APSRTC under an agreement dated 8.8.75-Transfer of 850 workmen of TTD to APSRTC challenged-Tribunal granting reliefs, inter alia, regarding promotion "if and when the workers opt to be governed by APSRTC Regulations then they may be given promotions taking into account their total service and the seniority including the TTD services"-Whether correct? (No)-Award modified.
       Held : Now the only question for consideration before us is with regard to the direction given by the Tribunal regarding promotion of the employees. The Tribunal noticed that the difficulty in regard to promotion had arisen on account of the fact that employees in the transport wing of the Corporation who were erstwhile employees of the T.T.D. were retrenched to go out of station and, in fact, those who were promoted and posted out of station came back to Tirupathi by giving up benefit of promotion. In these circumstances, the Tribunal felt that if and when the workers opt to be governed by the RTC regulations then they may be given promotions taking into account their total service and the seniority including the T.T.D. services. This direction would give rise to a lot of difficulties in the services inasmuch as several others have already been promoted and given that benefit and now to consider the cases of the members of the Union for promotion would lead to anomalous results that apart from financial burden that will arise in the case. Therefore, all that could be done now is to consider the cases of these employees for promotion as and when vacancies arise bearing in mind whether their juniors have been promoted earlier or not. In such cases, since the workmen in the transport wing have also opted to be governed by the RTC regulations, their cases will have to be examined for promotion but where promotions had already been given to others the same cannot be disturbed. Notional promotion may be given to them without any monetary benefits and suitable adjustments in seniority be made. Direction of this sort given in modification of the award of the Tribunal would meet the requirements of justice. We order accordingly. (Para 6)
       (ii) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 -Section 10(1)(d)-Industrial Dispute arising from Transfer of Transport wing-Question referred to Tribunal "whether the former Transferred TTD workers (presently the APSRTC workers) are entitled to the benefits accrued to the present TTD workers after 8.8.75 in terms of the agreement dated 8.8.75. If so, to what extent?"-Tribunal granting four reliefs as to pay grade, promotions, facility for bus tour and ex gratia bonus-Whether Tribunal travelled beyond the scope of Reference? (No).
       Held : Shri Nageswara Rao pointedly addressed that direction given by the Tribunal is far beyond the scope of the reference. The question referred to the Tribunal though worded as to the cover applicability of conditions of service in T.T.D. to the members of the respondent Union, what was really in issue is as to what conditions of service are applicable to them after they exercised their option to abide by the Corporation regulations, and thereafter both parties have raised pleadings and adduced evidence. Hence, we cannot say that the Tribunal travelled beyond the scope of reference. (Para 8)

JUDGMENT

Rajendra Babu, J.-The transport wing of Tirupathi Tirumala Devasthanam (for short "T.T.D.") was transferred to the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short `the Corporation ) under an agreement dated 8.8.1975. It was provided in the agreement that 850 workmen to be transferred to the Corporation. The transfer of the workmen to the Corporation was challenged in a writ petition No. 1361 of 1976 but it was dismissed on 13.7.1977 and a writ appeal filed against the said judgment was also confirmed. While some of the transferred T.T.D. transport workers who opted to come under the Corporation Rules and Regulations were not before the court, the other workers wanted to maintain their separate identity in spite of their transfer to the Corporation and so they did not opt to come under the Corporation Rules and Regulations. Subsequent to the transfer certain settlements had been entered into with the Corporation by the Union of the workmen from time to time. The members of the Union made a demand that under clause 13 of the transfer agreement dated 8.8.1975 they were entitled to the benefits which accrued to the present T.T.D. workers after 8.8.1975 but the Corporation did not agree for such demand, and industrial dispute was raised which was referred to the Industrial Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as `the Tribunal ) under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short "the Act"). The question referred to the Tribunal reads as follows :

"Whether the former transferred T.T.D. workers (presently the APSRTC workers) are entitled to the benefits accrued to the present T.T.D. workers after 8.8.75 in terms of the agreement dated 8.8.75. If so, to what extent?"

After notice the representatives of the Union, the Corporation and the T.T.D. filed their statements. The Union raised several questions although the question referred to the Tribunal was with reference to the benefits that have accrued to the present T.T.D. workers would be applicable to the erstwhile T.T.D. workers or not. In view of the several claims made before the Tribunal the scope of the reference was to be considered. The Tribunal examined various contentions and raised certain issues which are :

1. Whether the second respondent TTD represented by its Executive Officer is a proper and necessary party in this industrial dispute?

2. Whether the members of the petitioner Union are entitled to the benefits conferred on the TTD employees subsequent to 10.8.1975 merger?

3. If any relief is to be granted in this industrial dispute against whom should the award be passed?

4. To what relief?

The Tribunal noticed that clause 11 of the agreement indicated that the T.T.D. reserved its right to retain vehicles, equipment and other assets as required by them along with the required number of workers to operate them. Clause 13 stipulated that all the remaining workmen working in the transport undertaking of the T.T.D. without interruption in their service are taken by the Corporation and protection is given in pay and allowance, provident fund contributions and gratuity in terms of Section 25FF of the Act and T.T.D. agreed to pay such compensation if any as is liable to be paid to workmen who do not opt to serve under the Corporation. Under clause 14 arrangement is made for retirement benefits, provident fund and gratuity. Under clause 15 T.T.D. agreed to continue to permit the employees to continue to reside in their quarters subject to certain conditions. Pursuant to the take over there was complete cessation of legal relationship between the members of the Union and the T.T.D. and after 10.8.1975 these employees have entered into various agreements and settlements with the Corporation and the T.T.D. was not a party to those agreements and none of these workers opted to be retrenched and claimed compensation from the T.T.D., the Tribunal confined the dispute only as against the C

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday