Back
2016 Supreme(Chh) 295
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.
I B P Company Ltd through its Executive Director (HR), I B P Company Ltd. and Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
General Secretary, Chemical Employees Union - Respondent
Writ Petition No.790 of 2005
Decided On : 21-11-2016
For the Petitioners: Mr. Vinod Deshmukh.
For the Respondent: Mr. Gary Mukhopadhyay.
Headnote:
Constitution of India1950 - Article 227 - Industrial Disputes Act 1947 - Sections 18(1) and 2(p) - Employment of Business Group - Business of Petroleum - Chemical group was calculated at limit of maximum salary petitioner Company arrived at a long term settlement with respondent Union representing business group of Chemical division under provisions of Industrial Disputes said scheme was revised and computation of incentive was limited to maximum respondent Union raised industrial dispute before Conciliation Officer in respect of ceiling imposed management of petitioner Company per month and after conciliation appropriate Government vide its order referred industrial dispute to Industrial Court invoking Section Chhattisgarh Industrial Relations term reference was whether proper/necessary to grant benefit of PLI scheme without ceiling to employees working in establishment and if yes what would be scheme -Held, Petitioner Company has clearly that existing Productivity Linked Incentive Schemes were reviewed and it was decided to remove ceiling of salary scheme applicable to Business Group (Petroleum) and Corporate Office but it has also been provided in that scheme that since Business Groups Chemicals and Engineering are incurring losses ceiling limit was not removed with regard to Productivity Linked Incentive till those Business Groups make sufficient profits- So valid reason has also been assigned for making distinction between Petroleum division and Chemical division- reason appears to be justified- It is not case of respondent Union that petitioner Company so far as Chemical division has started making sufficient profits and it has not been established so by respondent herein Discrimination implies an unfair classification is distinction between discrimination without reason and discrimination with reason- whole doctrine of classification is based on this and on well-known that circumstances covering one set of provisions objects may not necessarily same as those covering another set of provisions and objects so that question of unequal treatment does not arise as between provisions covered by different sets of circumstances settlement entered into is binding between parties in which Productivity Linked Incentive has been limited and that has not been shown to be superseded or altered by another new settlement - Inter Office Correspondence of petitioner Company applicable only employees of Petroleum Division and sufficient reason has been provided for not extending same benefit respondent Union and has not been established that petitioner Company/Petroleum division has started sufficient earning and therefore Industrial Court is absolutely unjustified in holding it discriminatory- Even otherwise classification so made is just and fair aforesaid discussion impugned award passed by Industrial Court Raipur Case set aside and that respondent Union employees are not entitled for Productivity Linked Incentive at par with employees of Petroleum division till validity memorandum of settlement already entered into- However for subsequent period respondent Union is free to proceed in accordance with law - Petition allowed
1. The petitioner Company was a Government of India undertaking at the relevant point of time having three separate business groups engaged in three separate and distinct business carrying on the business of Petroleum, Chemical and Engineering. Each business group had its own set of rules and regulations and respective long term settlement were operating in specified business group for the purposes of benefit extended to the employees of different business groups. All the different business groups are governed by individual long term settlement.
2. Productivity Linked Incentive (PLI) for Chemical group was calculated at the limit of maximum salary of Rs.750/- per month. On 24-3-2001, the petitioner Company arrived at a long term settlement with the respondent Union representing the business group of Chemical division under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the said scheme was revised and computation of incentive was limited to the maximum of Rs.3,500/- per month. The respondent Union raised industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer in respect of ceiling imposed by the management of the petitioner Company i.e. Rs.3,500/- per month and after conciliation, the appropriate Government vide its order dated 17-11-2003 referred the industrial dispute to the Industrial Court invoking Section 51 of the Chhattisgarh Industrial Relations Act, 1960. The term of reference was, "whether it is proper/necessary to grant the benefit of PLI scheme without ceiling to the employees working in the establishment and if yes, what would be scheme for it".
3. Before the Industrial Court, the respondent Union was the first party and it filed the statement of claim stating inter alia that the petitioner is a Government of India undertaking and it has to act as a model employer. It has been averred that the discriminatory policy of the petitioner Company is writ large from the fact that favoured units like Corporate Office and Petroleum division employees were given the benefit of PLI without any ceiling limit whereas, the employees working in the Chemical division now renamed as Business Group Explosives are being given the said benefit but with ceiling limit of Rs.3,500/- per month and thereby it is clearly discriminatory in nature.
4. The petitioner Company filed its statement of claim that each business group is an independent business division and service conditions of employees working in different groups are governed by their own long term settlements arrived at between the Union and management from time to time. Long term settlement for each group is separate. It is further pleaded that PLI is paid as per profit and loss of the respective concerned division. It is also pleaded that placing ceiling limit of Rs.3,500/- in payment of PLI to the employees of the first party while removing this limit for the employees working in the Petroleum Division and Corporate Office cannot be termed as discrimination and therefore the reference petition deserves to be answered in favour of the Company.
5. The Industrial Court by its impugned award held that placing ceiling limit of Rs.3,500/- per month in PLI to the members of the employees working in the petitioner Company (Chemical Division) is discriminatory policy of the management and it is further held that the employees working in the business group of Chemical division deserve to be given benefit under the PLI scheme without any ceiling limit maintaining parity with the benefits given under the scheme to the employees working in the Business Group of Petroleum.
6. Feeling dissatisfied and aggrieved against the award holding that employees of the respondent Union are entitled for PLI without any ceiling limit, this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed assailing the award and holding that the employees of the respondent Union are
