Voltas Switchgear Plant Employees Union C/o Voltas Switchgear Ltd. . vs Voltas Switchgear Limited

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2001 Supreme(Bom) 15

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
V.C. Daga, J.
Voltas Switchgear Plant Employees’ Union C/o
Voltas Switchgear Ltd. .... Petitioner.
Versus
Voltas Switchgear Limited.... Respondent.
Writ Petition No. 479 of 2000, decided on 10-1-2001.
Advocates appeared :
Colin Gonsalves, for the petitioner.
Piyush Shah, for the respondent.

Headnote:Section 46-Maharashtra Factories Rules, 1963, Rules 82, 84 and 85--Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 9-A-Wage-DeductionFood supplied in canteens-Whether deduction includes food stuff charges also-Contention of union-Increase in charge of food stuffs amounting to wrongful deduction of salary and wages of staff and labourers-Vide Section 9-A of I.D. Act-Plea not valid-Condition of service do not include charges of such facility.- The Industrial Court also recorded a finding that fixing of rates of canteen items, cannot be the conditions of service under Section 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and consequently the Canteen facility and fixing new rates to be charged cannot be said to be the condition of service. The said finding of the Industrial Court is based on the judgment of this Court in the case of (Blue State Workers Union v. Blue Star Ltd. and others), reported in 1990 (II) CLR 258, wherein the learned Single Judge of this Court has categorically held that : "canteen facility and the rates to be charged for food items is not a condition of service". No case is made out by the petitioner/union to depart from the view in the field since 1990 in the matter of Blue Star Workers Union (cited supra).
Section 30(2)-Factories Act, i948, Section 46-Maharashtra Factory Rules, 1963, Rules 82, 84 and 85Interim relief refused- Validity-Revision in rates of edibles in canteen without their prior acceptance-As required under Factories Act-Management was obliged to consult the Union-Contention-Charge in rates was made after so many years and duly informed to workers on the Notice Board-Vide Rule 84-85 of Factories Rules not relevant-Rule 84 relates to consultation with union of any charge-It is factories inspector who is to look after rates and costs-Managing committee not to consider canteen related issues.-Considering the language used in Rules 84 and 85, one can safely reach to the conclusion that specific power to determine the prices or rates relating to the foodstuffs beverages and any other items to be served in the canteen which are in general demand, is beyond the purview of the Canteen Managing Committee as such for the determination of prices thereof, prima facie no consultation with the canteen managing Committee is contemplated under Rule 84 of the Rules. the field for both authorities is separately demarcated under the Rules, They cannot be allowed to overlap on each other, On the aforesaid interpretation of Rules 82, 84 and 85, if the impugned order passed by the learned member of the Industrial Court, is examined, it will be clear that the Industrial Court has rightly reached to the conclusion that fixing new rates to be charged, cannot be said to be within the purview of the canteen Managing Committee constituted or to be constituted under Rule 84 of the Rules. No fault with the finding recorded in this behalf can be found.

JUDGMENT - V.C. DAGA, J:---Heard. Rule returnable forthwith. Respondent waives service.

2. The petition in question is directed against the interim order dated 20th December, 1999, passed by the Industrial Court, Thane, refusing to grant interim relief under section 30(2) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "MRTU PULP Act" for short).

3. The petitioner is a registered trade union recognised under the provisions of MRTU PULP Act and represent all the workmen employed in the Switchgear factory at Thane run by the respondent/company. The respondent/company is a public limited company having its registered office and its factory at 2nd Pokhran Road, Thane. The company is engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing of electrical switchgears, panels and other accessories having 560 employees including supervisors and managerial staff.

4. The present controversy involved in the petition relates to the mode and manner of effecting revision in canteen rates, which had been fixed by the respondent/company as back as in 1972, which were not thereafter revised.

5. The petitioner claimed that foods and other items were supplied to the workmen in the canteen at the rates fixed mutually. The petitioner further claimed that revision in canteen rates could not have been effected without prior consultation of the Canteen Managing Committee, required to be constituted under the provisions of the Factories Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act", for short) and the Maharashtra Factories Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"). It was urged on behalf of the petitioner that respondent/company has no right to unilaterally increase the rates of foodstuff, beverages and any other items served in the canteen. Reliance was placed on section 46 of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. The petitioner further contended that the Canteen Managing Committee formed under Rule 84 of the Rules, has never consented to increase the rates and no meetings have been held in order to discuss and decide upon the increase in canteen rates. In the circumstances, the submission was that the respondent/company could not have bypassed statutory provisions requiring prior consultation with Canteen Managing Committee and had no right to straightway increase the rates. The reliance was also placed upon the settlement dated 7-10-1994 and particularly, Clause 22 whereby the respondent/company agreed that the practice/facilities as per the Settlement would continue.

6. It was strenuously urged on behalf of the petitioner that the increase in rates has resulted in increase in deductions from the workers' salaries thus amounted to an illegal change within the meaning of section 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, since no notice under section 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, has been given. The revision of rates, are illegal and could not have been allowed to stand or at any rate cannot be allowed to be act upon.

7. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner further tried to borrow support from Rule 82 of the Rules, and contended that it is obligatory on the part of the management to display on the notice-board, the charges for per portion of foodstuffs, beverages and any other items served in the canteen. In his submission Rule 82, contemplates or presupposes the determination of rates or prices thereof. As such according to him under Rule 82 it was obligatory on the part of the management to consult the Canteen Managing Committee before finalisation of the rates of the foodstuff, beverages and any other items served or to be served in the canteen.

8. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent/company in reply contended that the annual canteen expenses, both for material and labour put together, are approximately in the sum of Rs. 80 lakhs and respondent/company has been absorbing huge amount of canteen subsidy since 1974 when the prices

Click Here to Read the rest of this document