Back
2009 Supreme(Cal) 544
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA & MD. ABDUL GHANI, JJ.
Garden Reach Ship Builders and Engineers Limited
Vs.
State of West Bengal & Ors.
A.P.O. No. 197 of 2008; W.P. No. 734 of 1993
Decided On : July 28, 2009
A Tribunal cannot dissect the terms of a settlement and ignore some of its terms, as the settlement has to be accepted or rejected as a whole unless it is demonstrated that the objectionable portion completely outweighs all the other advantages gained.
Headnote:
GARDEN REACH SHIP BUILDERS & ENGINEERS LTD. VS. SECRETARY, GARDEN REACH SHIP BUILDERS & ENGINEERS LTD. STAFF ASSOCIATION - INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - SECTION 10(1)(d) - SETTLEMENT - INTERPRETATION - The Court held that the Tribunal erred in granting relief to a group of staff treating them as clerks on and from 1st January 1982 based on its own interpretation of the terms of settlement, which were not unfair and binding on the staff association, as it ignored certain terms of the settlement and failed to consider that the staff were not treated as clerks in true sense but were only fitted into the pay scales of the clerical cadre.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant company challenged an award of the Industrial Tribunal granting equal benefits to a group of staff (Card Writers/Record Keepers) with the clerks of the company on and from 1st January 1982, on the ground that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to do so as the dispute was resolved by two settlements arrived at between the company and two other unions representing the majority of the employees, excluding the staff association.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the Tribunal erred in its interpretation of the terms of settlement and in granting relief to the staff treating them as clerks on and from 1st January 1982, as there was no evidence that they were doing the same work as the original clerks of the company and the terms of settlement did not provide for treating them at par with the clerks.
Issues: Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to decide the dispute in view of the settlements arrived at between the company and two other unions representing the majority of the employees, excluding the staff association.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the Tribunal erred in dissecting the terms of settlement and ignoring some of its terms, as the settlement had to be accepted or rejected as a whole unless it was demonstrated that the objectionable portion completely outweighed all the other advantages gained.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the Trial Judge and the award of the Tribunal, and directed the company to sit with the staff association to address their grievance for bringing them at par with the clerk by holding fresh negotiation and settlement within three months from the date of communication of the order.
The Court: The appellant above named being aggrieved by the judgment and order of dismissal of its writ petition by the learned Trial Judge dated 10th July 2008 has brought this appeal. By the judgment and order impugned learned Trial Judge upheld the award of the learned 7th Industrial Tribunal dated 30th of May 1992 which was passed in favour of third respondent, viz. Secretary Garden Reach Ship Builders & Engineers Ltd. Staff Association on the issues referred to by the State as follows:
"Whether Card Writers! Record Keepers of the company are entitled to same dearness allowance and other benefits as enjoyed by the Clerks of the company."
2. On the above issue earlier the learned Tribunal had passed an award dated 27th December, 1988 and the same was challenged by writ petition earlier by the appellant above named, and it was set aside by the learned Single Judge of this Court by an Order dated 19th July, 1990 and directed the learned Tribunal to hear the matter de novo observing certain irregularities and lacuna made therein. The appellant being aggrieved by the said portion of the order of remand preferred appeal against the order passed by the learned Single Judge and necessary interim relief for granting stay of de novo hearing 'was prayed for however, the Division Bench did not grant stay of hearing by interim order dated 22nd February, 1991 but it was made clear award might be made and published but effect thereof can not be given by any of the parties before us. Pursuant to the above direction the learned Tribunal heard de novo having received further evidence and decided the matter. The respondent No.3 representing the aforesaid cadre viz. Card Writers/ Record Keepers filed the written statement and substance of the same is as follows:
"The aforesaid employees numbering about 315 since beginning have been doing the same nature of job as the clerical staff were doing. In spite of that they were not treated at par with the clerks"
3. Originally they were members of Mazdoor and Staff Union and another union namely the Company's Clerks' Union. Since their case was not espoused by the said union before the Company they formed the aforesaid Union namely the Staff Association in the year 1982 and they put forward their demands of bringing themselves at par with the clerk and to give benefit from the date of their respective appointments. The company though having recognized the said Staff Association, did settle all the disputes with workmen inviting the said two unions but excluding the said Staff Association entering into two settlements one bipartite and another tripartite both dated 5th March, 1983. In the tripartite settlement their demand and/or case for parity was placed by the Mazdoor Union, and, with these two settlements some benefit has been given, but these settlements are not meeting their full demands which they have been pressing for a long time. Having found no alternative under pressure and coercion and having regard to their financial stringency all these members of the aforesaid cadre had to accept the benefit as given under the said two settlements dated 5th March 1983. According to the said Association since they were not invited nor was it signatory terms and conditions purporting to resolve the dispute by the two settlements, so far the said group of staff are concerned, are not binding upon them, Other two unions were made parties, they filed their respective submissions before the learned Tribunal and supported the said two settlements and their operation stating that all the disputes of all the employees concerned have been peacefully resolved by bipartite and tripartite settlements by 5th March, 1983 and nothing remaining outstanding.
The company filed counter-statement before the learned Tribunal and specifically agitated that there had and still has been no dispute for resolution as everything has been settled by bipartite and tripartite settlements as above and the same were and are
