The court upheld the Industrial Tribunal's award of a 12% pay increase based on justifiable economic considerations, denying the petitioner's claims of illegality in reference and maintaining the Tribunal's jurisdiction despite typographical issues.

ORDER :

D.N. RAY, J.

1. Heard Mr. G.M. Joshi, learned Senior Advocate with Mr. Kartik H. Bhatt, learned Advocate with Mr. Sushil R. Mishra, learned Advocate for the Petitioner, Mr. M.N.Marfatia, learned Advocate for the Respondent No.1 and Ms.Hetal Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State -Respondent.

2. Brief facts of the case are as under:

2.1 The petitioner is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing invitro diagnostic kits and reagents. The present dispute originates from an industrial disagreement raised by Respondent No. 1, a recognized workers' union, after efforts to resolve differences during several conciliation meetings on a charter of demands proved unsuccessful. The said charter was initially submitted by Respondent No. 1 before the Assistant Labour Commissioner and Conciliation Officer, Surat.

2.2 Upon failure to arrive at a settlement, Respondent No. 1, through a communication dated 25.03.2022, sought intervention from the said authority. Consequently, the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Surat, by letter dated 18.06.2022, referred the matter to the Industrial Tribunal, Surat, which came to be registered as Reference (I.T.) No. 15 of 2022.

2.3 The respondent union filed a claim statement raising 31 demands, which include:

(1) a 30% upward revision in basic pay for the year 2020-2021 as well as 2021-22, (2) revision of residential rent allowance, (3) an increase in special allowances, (4) annual medical allowance, (5) revisions in leave structure, (6) an increase in the retirement age, (7) leave travel allowance, (8) shift duty allowances, (9) group insurance premium, (10) compensation for families of deceased workers, (11) festival advance, (12) food grain advance, (13) interest-free home loans, (14) provision of winter and monsoon wear, (15) filling of vacant posts, (16) special duty allowances, (17) education allowance, (18) transport or petrol cost compensation, (19) bonus provisions, (20) revision of gratuity, (21) coverage of medical expenses for duty-related injuries, (22) an increase in company-provided loans, (23) regularization of contract workers, (24) equal pay for outsourced employees, (25) equal pay and benefits for temporary workers, (26) allocation of a staff welfare fund, (27) benefits for differently-abled workers, (28) COVID-19 insurance, (29) canteen subsidies (30) a two-year settlement duration, and (31) a COVID-19 prevention scheme.

Subsequently, the respondent union withdrew demands numbered 23 to 25, pertaining to regularization and parity in pay for outsourced and temporary employees.

2.4 The petitioner filed a detailed reply at Exh. 13, disputing the claims made by Respondent No. 1. In its response, it was contended that the demands lacked adequate justification and were untenable in the given context. It was further submitted that the demands were made by only 37 members of Respondent No. 1, out of a total workforce of 472 employees, whereas the remaining employees had accepted the settlement terms voluntarily, including salary increments. The petitioner also placed reliance on the discussions held during meetings on 17.10.2020, 18.12.2021, 25.01.2022, and 02.02.2022, where a 9.5% increment was proposed for the years 2021–22 and 2022–23. These offers, it is contended, were declined by the respondent union allegedly under external influence.

2.5 By way of an award dated 23.09.2024, the Industrial Tribunal, Surat, partly allowed the reference and directed the petitioner to implement a 12% increase in basic pay for the financial years 2020-21 and 2021-22. The award also provided for an additional special allowance of Rs. 3,000, to be disbursed in two equal parts of Rs. 1,500 each for the said years.

3. Aggrieved by the said award dated 23