Back
2006 Supreme(Del) 859
High Court Of Delhi
BHUPAT SINGH - Appellant
Versus
HINDUSTAN TIMES LTD - Respondent
Decided On : 05/09/2006
Headnote:
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - SECTION 2(K), 2(L), 10, 12, 18, 19 - REFERENCE OF DISPUTES - EXCLUSION OF WORKMEN FROM REFERENCE - SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES - LOCKOUT - SCOPE AND APPLICABILITY.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, office bearers of the Hindustan Times Employees Union, filed writ proceedings seeking a direction to make a proper reference and quash the existing reference made on 2.2.2005, by respondents 3 and 4. They also sought a direction that the exclusion of reference on account of omission of names of 47 workers is unsupported by law. The Union preferred a statement of claim on 10.9.2004. The Union relies upon certain correspondence addressed to the first respondent on 4th - 6th of October, 2005, as well as letters written to the minister, Industry and Labour, Government of NCT on 11.10.2004. It also relies on a pleading dated 24.11.2004 urged in support of its statement of claim before the 4th respondent (Conciliation Officer) in which it alleged that the action of the management amounted to declaration of a mala fide and illegal lock out. The union claimed prohibition of continuation of such lock out. Other pleading/additional claims was lodged along with a covering letter on 30.11.2004 in which the Union stated the conciliation proceedings had been closed on 8.11.2004. ON 2.2.2005, the appropriate Government, pursuant to the statement of claim dated 13.10.2004 and after considering the contentions of the management and the first two respondents, made a reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Finding of the Court:
The appropriate government was of the opinion that the management had produced material to show that it had settled with 47 workmen; the Union was given an opportunity to show that those workmen were aggrieved, in respect of such settlement, but it was unable to show otherwise. The appropriate government also ruled out reference of the issue of lockout, on the ground that no materials on record justified reference to such an issue, and the union had not raised the dispute, when it made the statement of claim, on 13-10-2004.
Issues: 1. Whether exclusion of 47 workmen in the reference is illegal? 2. Whether exclusion of the question relating to illegal lockout, in the reference is illegal?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. An industrial dispute, as the definition indicates, is a dispute or difference between a workman and his employer, in relation to his employment, non-employment, or terms of employment. 2. If a group of employees, who were initially part of the larger dispute raised on behalf of all (including themselves) however, proceed to enter into a separate compact, or individual settlements with the management, and choose not to participate in the larger dispute, for their own reasons, the question is whether the industrial dispute, survives as far as they are concerned. 3. The objective of the Act is to achieve industrial peace and harmony. The mechanism of referring disputes after a compulsory conciliation proceeding is the legislative determination that all efforts to ensure peace, and continued industrial production should be exhausted. 4. If the objective underlying the Act, and the scheme of the provisions, viz Sections 2 (k), 2 (p); 2 (s), 10, 12, 18 and 19 are kept in mind, then there can be no question of a surviving industrial dispute in the case of those workmen who enter into binding settlements, which bind them and the management, under Section 18 (1 ). 5. The terms of Section 10 place an embargo on the nature of enquiry that can be embarked upon by the judicial forum or adjudicator, when entering upon reference. 6. The scheme of the proviso to S. 25ff emphasizes the same policy. If the three conditions specified in the proviso are satisfied, there is not termination of service either in fact or in law, and so, there is no scope for the payment of any compensation. That is the effect of the proviso. Therefore, reading S. 25ff as whole, it does appear that unless the transfer falls under the proviso, the employees of the transferred concern are entitled to claim compensation against the transferor and they cannot make any claim for re-employment against the transferee of the undertaking.
Final Decision: The writ petition is accordingly dismissed, without any order as to costs.
( 1 ) IN these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a direction has been sought to respondents, to make a proper and suitable reference and also quash the existing reference made on 2. 2. 2005, by respondents 3 and 4. The petitioners have also sought for an appropriate direction that the exclusion of reference on account of omission of names of 47 workers is unsupported by law
( 2 ) THE three original petitioners are office bearers of the Hindustan times Employees Union. The said Union was registered in 1994 under the Trade unions Act. The said Union and the Hindustan Times Limited, the first respondent in these proceedings, had entered into a wage settlement on 22. 9. 1989. The said parties had also entered into another settlement with regard to terms and conditions of workers of the first respondent, on 24. 1. 2001 and 12. 8. 2002. It has claimed that certain decisions were taken in a meeting held between the management of the first respondent and the Hindustan Times employees Union on 12. 8. 2002, relating to staff requirement in various departments, overtime payments etc.
( 3 ) THE petitioners rloyees, by appointing them on contract basis thus depriving due wages resulting in weakening of the Union and also violating existing terms and conditions, in Section 9-A of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947 (hereafter the Act ).
( 4 ) THE Union preferred a statement of claim on 10. 9. 2004 It is claimed that this was replied to by the said respondents before respondents 3 and 4. It is alleged that the 4th respondent directed first two respondents not to change conditions of service by terminating employment of any workman. In this background, it is alleged that unilaterally on 3. 10. 2004, the first respondent terminated the service of 362 employees in terms of Section 25ff of the industrial Disputes Act. By this notice, the respondents intimated the workmen in the printing undertaking that ownership of that undertaking had been transferred and taken over by H. T. Media Limited, the second respondent w. e. f. 2. 10. 2004 under an agreement dated 1. 10. 2004 It was also stated that the second respondent decided not to take over the services of the workmen engaged in the printing undertaking (the first respondent), and that their services would come to an automatic end w. e. f. 3. 10. 2004 as per provisions of Section 25ff of the industrial Disputes Act. Individual letters were sent to all the 362 workmen along with cheques towards the compensation payable.
( 5 ) IN the meanwhile, on 10. 9. 2004, the Union had approached the 3rd respondent seeking to raise industrial dispute and for initiating conciliation proceedings, in respect of the proposal to shift the print line to the second respondent (H. T. Media Limited) and terming it as mala fide and illegal. It was also claimed that the new arrangement contemplated amounted to an illegal change and was sought to be given effect to, contrary to Section 9-A of the Industrial disputes Act.
( 6 ) THE Union relies upon certain correspondence addressed to the first respondent on 4th - 6th of October, 2005, as well as letters written to the minister, Industry and Labour, Government of NCT on 11. 10. 2004 It also relies on a pleading dated 24. 11. 2004 urged in support of its statement of claim before the 4th respondent (Conciliation Officer) in which it alleged that the action of the management amounted to declaration of a mala fide and illegal lock out. The union claimed prohibition of continuation of such lock out. Other pleading/additional claims was lodged along with a covering letter on 30. 11. 2004 in which the Union stated the conciliation proceedings had been closed on 8. 11. 2004 The Union also stated the failure report had been apparently submitted as per its understanding.
( 7 ) ON 2. 2. 2005, the appropriate Government, pursuant to the statement of claim dated 13. 10. 2004 and after considering the contentions of the management and the f
