Back
1990 Supreme(Kar) 413
Karnataka High Court
HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED, BANGALORE - Appellant
Versus
WORKMEN OF HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED (HEAD OFFICE), BANGALORE - Respondent
Decided On : 08-21-90
W.P. : 710 of 1983
K.SUBBA RAO, S.G.SUNDARA SWAMY
An employer has the authority to make changes in the conditions of service of its employees under Section 9-a of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, provided that the changes are not arbitrary or unreasonable and do not adversely affect the interests of the workmen.
Headnote:
The petitioner, a company wholly owned by the government of India, sought to introduce changes in the conditions of service of its employees, including working hours, holidays, and over-time pay, under Section 9-a of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The changes were opposed by the workmen, who claimed that they were not justified and would adversely affect their interests. The matter was referred to an industrial tribunal for adjudication.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a company wholly owned by the government of India, sought to introduce changes in the conditions of service of its employees, including working hours, holidays, and over-time pay, under Section 9-a of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The changes were opposed by the workmen, who claimed that they were not justified and would adversely affect their interests. The matter was referred to an industrial tribunal for adjudication.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the changes proposed by the petitioner were justified and that the workmen were not entitled to any relief. The court found that the petitioner had the authority to make the changes under Section 9-a of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that the changes were not arbitrary or unreasonable. The court also found that the changes would not adversely affect the interests of the workmen.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner had the authority to make the changes under Section 9-a of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947? 2. Whether the changes were arbitrary or unreasonable? 3. Whether the changes would adversely affect the interests of the workmen?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner had the authority to make the changes under Section 9-a of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that the changes were not arbitrary or unreasonable. The court also found that the changes would not adversely affect the interests of the workmen.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the award of the industrial tribunal.
( 1 ) THE petitioner in this petition is a company wholly owned by the government of India run under the ministry of defence engaged in the manufacture of aircrafts. The head office of the company controlling and administering all the divisions is situate at Bangalore.
( 2 ) THE petitioner by notice dated 9-12-1970 notified to its employees, as provided under Section 9-a of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short 'the act') of changes relating to conditions of service which it wanted to bring about in respect of its employees represented by the 1st respondent herein, leading to the raising of an industrial dispute by the latter, which was referred for adjudication to the 2nd respondent-industrial tribunal, Bangalore (in short 'tribunal' ). The tribunal adjudicated upon the dispute and held that the proposed changes are not justified and shall not be introduced among workmen in the head office of the petitioner. The matters referred for adjudication of the tribunal are as follows:"are the management of hindustan aeronautics limited (office of the chairman), Bangalore justified in proposing to introduce the changes mentioned in the annexure: Annexure 1. Instead of paying extra wages for over-time to only employees in group-d and below at the ordinary wage rate with Provisions for setting off overtime against late coming or early going as at present, extra wage for over-time work done will be paid at double the normal wage rate to all employees in grade 'e' and below in accordance with personnel circular No. 176, dated 30th november, 1970, which will be extended to the head office. 2. All employees will be required to punch the timings of their arrival and departure, once time clocks are installed.
( 3 ) DEDUCTION will be made at the normal wage rates in the wage for late coming/early going subject to the condition that no deduction will be made for ten minutes on any single day and 30 minutes during a month.
( 4 ) AT present the administrative offices of all public sector undertakings in Bangalore as well as the administrative offices of the divisions of h. a. l. except the head office have the same number of holidays as the factories. In order to bring in uniformity, the number of holidays per calendar year observed in the head office will be reduced from 16 days to 12 days including the three national holidays, viz. Republic day, independence day and mahatma gandhi's birth day. There are no restricted holidays.
( 5 ) AT present the administrative offices of all public sector undertakings in Bangalore as well as the administrative offices of the divisions of H. A. L. except the head office have the same number of working hours as the factories. In order to bring in uniformity, the working hours for all employees in the head office will be 8 hours per day on all working days. The normal working hours will be as below: 9-00 a. m. to 1-00 p. m. 1-30 p. m. to 5-30 p. m. the existing shift hours of employees such as drivers, messengers, sweepers, etc. , Will be modified suitably. " 3. The tribunal held that the changes proposed as above are not justified and shall not be introduced against the workmen in the head office. Aggrieved by this award the petitioner has come up to this court by presenting this petition. 4. The petitioner contended that, the changes that were sought to be introduced as above are made in order to bring about uniformity in the conditions of service of the employees in the divisions and at the head office in addition to the factor of bringing in improvement in the administration to enable better production; the petitioner in exercise of its managerial powers effected these changes and no exception could be taken to the same; the workmen covered by the labour enactments have a distinct and separate status; the nature of relationship between the employer and the workmen as in the present case is one of status and not contract and hence could effect changes in service conditions unilateral
