Back
Madras High Court
S. RAMACHANDRA IYER,ANANTANARAYANAN
Tamilnad Electricity Workers Federation by its General Secy.S.G.Krishnan - Appellant
Versus
Madras State Electricity Board by its Chairman - Respondent
Decided On : 12/11/1963
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT - SECTION 9-A, 19(2), 33(1) - CHANGE IN SERVICE CONDITIONS - NOTICE - CONSENT OF WORKMEN - REPRESENTATION BY TRADE UNIONS - INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM - UNFAIR LABOUR PRACTICE - WRIT JURISDICTION - PUBLIC UTILITY CONCERN - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:
The Tamilnad Electricity Workers Federation and the Madras Electricity Worker Union challenged the Madras State Electricity Board's (respondent) proceedings altering the service conditions of workmen relating to dearness allowance, casual leave, and National and Festival Holidays. The Board adopted the prior conditions of service of these employees as transitory regulations and entered into an agreement with the appellant labour unions on 03-02-1959, covering all categories of workers and related matters. Subsequently, the Board issued notices under Section 9-A for reduction of National and Festival Holidays, restriction of casual leave facilities, and a change in dearness allowance. The unions opposed these changes, and conciliation was commenced. The Board tentatively agreed not to give effect to the proposed changes, and further talks were adjourned. The unions attempted to raise an industrial dispute, but the Government declined to make a reference under Section 10(1)(c) of the Act. On 31-10-1961, the Federation of Workers sent a letter to the respondent Board terminating the agreement dated 3-2-1959 by giving notice of two months under Section 19 of the Act. On 28-12-1961, the Board issued the impugned proceedings, which included changes in service terms and conditions, including dearness allowance, pay scales, National and Festival Holidays, and Casual leave. The unions contended that the changes were detrimental to the workmen and violated Sections 9-A, 19(2), and 33(1) of the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the changes proposed by the Board were not unilaterally imposed but were based on an offer by the employer and the consent of the concerned workmen. The court found that the changes were not prejudicial to the workmen and that the appellant unions did not have the right to dictate to those workmen who had accepted the offer. The court also held that Section 33(1) of the Act did not apply because the alteration in the conditions of service was not to the prejudice of the workmen concerned. The court further held that even if the offer could be considered an unfair labour practice, it would not justify interference by the court in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction.
Issues: 1. Whether the changes in service conditions proposed by the Board were in violation of Section 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947? 2. Whether the changes violated Section 19(2) of the Act? 3. Whether the changes violated Section 33(1) of the Act? 4. Whether the appellant unions had the right to represent the workmen who had accepted the Board's offer? 5. Whether the offer by the Board constituted an unfair labour practice?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was not designed to prevent the implementation of any change that is not imposed by the employer on the workmen but is based on the consent of the workmen to the offer by the employer. 2. Section 19(2) of the Act was not violated because the earlier agreement ceased to be binding on and from 2-1-1962. 3. Section 33(1) of the Act did not apply because the alteration in the conditions of service was not to the prejudice of the workmen concerned. 4. The appellant unions did not have the right to represent the workmen who had accepted the Board's offer because the workmen were sui juris and had the right to exercise their own judgment as to whether the offer was beneficial to them. 5. Even if the offer by the Board could be considered an unfair labour practice, it would not justify interference by the court in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction.
Final Decision: The writ appeal was dismissed, and there was no order as to costs.
ANANTANARAYANAN, J. :- The Tamilnad Electricity Workers Federation, represented by its General Secretary, and the Madras Electricity Worker Union, also represented by its General Secretary, have instituted this appeal from the judgment of Veeraswami, J. in W. P. No. 45 of 1962. In that proceeding, those appellants sought the issue of a
writ of mandamus to the Madras State Electricity Board (respondent) to forbear from implementing its proceedings No. 2794 dated 28-12-1901, in so far as those proceedings altered the service conditions of the workmen of the Board relating to dearness allowance, casual leave, and National and Festival Holidays. The learned judge, Veeraswami, J. declined to issue the writ, upon grounds set forth by him in his Judgment under appeal.
2. Before proceeding to the central issue that arises for our determination, within the compass of the present appeal, we shall first set forth, in a condensed from, the events that led to the impugned proceedings of the Madras State Electricity Board, respondent. This board was constituted with effect from 01-07-1957, and the employees in the Electricity Department of the Government thereupon became employees of the Board under S. 79(c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 : the Board adopted the prior conditions of service of these employees, as applicable to them, as Transitory regulations. After the appointment of a Negotiating Committee between the members of the appellant labour Unions and the Board (respondent), an agreement came into existence on 03-02-1959, which covered all categories of workers, and related to such matters as pay scales, dearness allowance, etc. It is important to note that there was no determined period of duration for this agreement. After this, there were two main developments in the relations between the Board and the Labour Unions, which were distinct. With regard to an alleged increase in the hours of work Directed by the Board (respondent) the Union instituted W. P. No. 727 of 1960 on the ground of violation of S. 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. A petition for stay in that proceeding C. M. P. 4630 of 1960 resulted in a stay which was vacated on an assurance by the Board with regard, to notice under S. 9-A of the Act. Ultimately, upon this aspect or development there was an agreement between the Board, and the Federation of the employees, accepting certain changes in the hours of work, in accordance with S. 12(3) of the Act. The consequence was that W. P. No. 727 of 1960 became infructuous and was dismissed as such in November 1961.
3. Parallel with this, there was another development, namely, in November-December 1960 the Board issued notices under S. 9-A, first, for reduction of National and Festival Holidays, and restriction, of casual leave Facilities : and secondly, to effect a change in clearness allowance by merging it with pay. coupled with revision of house rent allowance. There was opposition to these proceedings from the Unions and conciliation was commenced. The Board tentatively agreed not to give effect to the proposed changes, and further talks were adjourned. There was an attempt by the Unions to raise an industrial dispute over this matter, but on 29-4-1961 the Government by G O. Ms No. 3441 (Labour) declined to make a reference under Section 10(1)(c) of the Act on the two main grounds of the pendency of W. P. No. 727 of 1960 in this court, and the fact that the agreement dated 03-02-1959 relating to dearness allowance was still in force. On 31-10-1961, the Federation of Workers sent a letter to the respondent Board form terminating the agreement dated 3-2-1959 as between the parties by giving notice of two months under S. 19 of the Act. While matters stood thus, on 28-12-1961 the Board issued the impugned proceedings to which some separate reference now becomes essential.
4. These proceedings included within their scope several, matters relating to the service terms and conditions of the workmen, such as dear
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
