2022 Supreme(Del) 2178

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
GAURANG KANTH, J.
N.T.P.C. & Anr. - Appellant
Versus
Badarpur Power Engineers & Workers Union & Anr. - Respondents
W.P.(C) 18657 of 2004 and C.M. Nos. 14165 of 2004 & 8733 of 2005
Decided on : 23-11-2022

The Labour Court cannot direct for the appointment of the dependents of each and every employee of BTPS who died in harness. The Labour Court could at the most give direction to the management of BTPS to consider the individual applications of dependents on the basis of aforementioned considerations and could not give a mandate directing the petitioner to give appointment to the dependents.

Headnote:

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - SECTION 2(K) - INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE - APPOINTMENT ON COMPASSIONATE GROUNDS - SETTLEMENT - BINDING EFFECT - JURISDICTION OF LABOUR COURT - PERVERSE FINDING - WRIT OF CERTIORARI.

Fact of the Case:

The dispute arose out of the issue of appointment on compassionate grounds and whether direction pertaining to the same can be issued in a blanket manner. The petitioner, NTPC, is a Government Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. Badarpur Thermal Power Station (BTPS) is an establishment owned by the Government of India and set up for the purpose of production of electricity. Vide agreement dated 12th April, 1978 between the Central Government and the Petitioner, the management of BTPS was transferred to the Petitioner for a period of ten years with effect from 1.04.1978. This agreement was extended from time to time and it was last extended till 31.03.2005. After the management of BTPS was transferred to the Petitioner, the employees working at BTPS volunteered to become the employees of the Petitioner. In order to maintain industrial peace and harmony and to prescribe uniform terms and conditions of services to all employees at all establishments run by the Petitioner, the management of the Petitioner and the representatives of all establishments had constituted a Committee, namely, National Bi-partite Committee (NBC). As and when the parties felt it desirable to enter into a fresh settlement, the matter was discussed and negotiated at the national level in NBC and a draft settlement was arrived at. Thereafter, the NTPC and the representatives of workmen executed the settlements during the course of conciliation proceedings before the respective appropriate Governments with the active involvement of the Labour Department of the Central Government. Such settlements were also entered with employees of BTPS on 31.08.1978, 12.06.1979 and 14.09.1983. The workmen working at BTPS at the relevant time were represented by various trade unions. The respondent No. 1/union was not involved in the signatures to the settlements. These settlements dealt with the terms and conditions of employment of the workmen with the Petitioner and included, inter alia, the subject-matter of appointment on compassionate grounds. Thereafter, in a tripartite meeting held on 07.12.1984 and 11.12.1984 between the representative of Central Government, NTPC and the employees, the Secretary, Ministry of Power decided and agreed to extend the facility of appointment on compassionate grounds of dependents of employees of BTPS which was available only on death on duty due to any reason during the period of service, considering the qualification and vacancies. Subsequent to this, a circular dated 21.12.1984 was issued by the management of BTPS incorporating this decision taken at the meeting. It is the case of the Petitioner that in spite of the fact that the matter relating to compassionate appointment at BTPS was the subject matter of a settlement between the management and the workmen, the respondent union moved the Labour Department of the Central Government raising an alleged dispute for extending the facility of appointment on compassionate grounds to the dependents of the employees who died in harness. The management of the Petitioner appeared before the learned conciliation officer and apprised him of the fact that the matter relating to compassionate appointments at BTPS was already covered by a settlement. Thereafter, the Central Government made a reference for adjudication to the learned Labour Court in the following terms: “Whether the General Manager BTPS, New Delhi is justified in not extending the facility of appointment on compassionate grounds to the dependents of employees who die during the period of service, taking into account the qualifications and fitness of the dependent to the particular post? If not, what relief the workmen were entitled to.” Pursuant to the reference, Respondent No.1/union filed a statement of claim. In response to the notice from the learned Labour Court, the management of the Petitioner Company appeared and contested the claim on various grounds. Thereafter, the Respondent union filed a rejoinder. Sh. Om Prakash, General Secretary of respondent No.1/union was examined as WW-1. Sh.A.K Verma, Senior Manager (P&A) in NTPC, New Delhi was examined as MW-1. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing material on record, the learned Labour Court passed the impugned award and replied to the reference in the following terms: “The General Manager BTPS, New Delhi is not justified in not extending the facility of appointment on compassionate grounds to the dependents of employees who dies during their period of service, taking into account the qualification and the fitness of the dependents to the particular post. One dependent of every deceased workman is entitled for compassionate appointment subject to qualifications and fitness prescribed on that behalf and it is further directed that within one month of the publication of the award, each and every case should be considered and appointment should be given.” Being aggrieved by the impugned award, the Petitioner has preferred the present Writ Petition.

Finding of the Court:

1. The impugned award of the Labour Court is perverse and suffers from the infirmities as highlighted in the judgment. 2. The learned Labour Court has not perused the settlements operating in the field which regulated the subject-matter of compassionate appointment and has granted the relief to the dependents of the deceased workmen in absolute terms. 3. The learned Labour Court has proceeded with the reference in disregard of the settled position of law. 4. The learned Labour Court could not have directed for the appointment of the dependents of each and every employee of BTPS who died in harness. 5. The learned Labour Court could at the most give direction to the management of BTPS to consider the individual applications of dependents on the basis of aforementioned considerations and could not give a mandate directing the petitioner to give appointment to the dependents.

Issues: 1. Whether the Labour Court had jurisdiction to entertain the dispute. 2. Whether the findings returned and relief granted by the learned Labour Court are legally sustainable. 3. Whether the learned Labour Court has returned the abovementioned findings in clear ignorance of the facts of the case and the settled position of law.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Labour Court had jurisdiction to entertain the dispute as it questioned the justifiability of action taken by an authority in implementing the terms of the settlement. 2. The findings returned and relief granted by the learned Labour Court are not legally sustainable as the learned Labour Court has ignored the position of law pertaining to settlement and has granted the relief of appointment on compassionate grounds in a blanket manner. 3. The learned Labour Court has returned the abovementioned findings in clear ignorance of the facts of the case and the settled position of law.

Final Decision: The impugned award is set aside and the present Writ Petition is allowed along with accompanying applications.