Back
2015 Supreme(Mad) 194
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. Duraiswamy, J.
M/s Hindustan Unilever Ltd.
Versus
The Presiding Officer, Labour Court & Another
W.P. Nos. 29416 & 29417 of 2014 & M.P. No. 1 of 2014 (2 in Nos.)
Decided on: 06-02-2015
For the Petitioner:Sanjay Mohan for M/s. Ramasubramaniam Associates, Advocates.
For the Respondent:R2, P.R. Thiruneelakandan, Advocate.
Headnote:
Industrial Dispute Act – Section 18(1) - Central Industrial Dispute Rules, 1957 - Rule 10 B – Claim of compensation - Issues relating to increment of wages – Jurisdiction - Management filed a Petition under Rule 10 B of Central Industrial Dispute Rules, 1957 praying an order to record settlement between Management and majority of its workers under Section 18(1) of Industrial Dispute Act and dismiss claim petition filed by Workers Union on ground that issues under reference is resolved between majority of workers and Management which is binding on minority workers - Petition was filed by Workers Union under Section 10(4) of Industrial Dispute Act praying an interim order directing respondent to pay admitted wage increase of per month to Union Workers with retrospective effect and pay arrears of interim relief within a stipulated time pending disposal of Industrial Dispute - Industrial Dispute was referred by Government for adjudication on claim of Workers Union based on charter of demands which is relating to wage revision and other service conditions - It is not in dispute that Hindustan Unilever Limited factory is having permanent workers and there are three registered trade unions in Companies factory – Held, In these circumstances judgments relied on by counsel for petitioner is not applicable to facts and circumstances of present case - With regard to application filed by respondent Union seeking for wage revision per month to other workers with retrospective effect is concerned it was contended by petitioner Management that they had already entered into an agreement with recognized Trade Union by name National Employees Trade Union attached with petitioner Management factory – Further according to Management as many workers agreed to receive benefits as per settlement Deed which would be valid - As per said settlement workers who had agreed to sign settlement were eligible for additional increment of per month for agreement period – However Union did not agree to enter into settlement - It is evident that petitioner Management accepted to increase wage revision as per agreement - Petitioner Management has also agreed to pay average annual increase of per month for agreement period to workers who had signed settlement deed - It is settled position that while fixing fair wages Tribunal can take into consideration of a comparable unit of cross section of industry and fix fair wages on basis of industry-cum-region - Management agreed for enhancement of wages to per month as per agreement respondent Union workers claimed only per month as increment pending disposal of Industrial Dispute before Lab our Court - Since claim made by respondent Union worker is much less than what was agreed by Management as per agreement Lab our Court has rightly came to conclusion that respondent Union workers are entitled for average wage increment per month from date of agreement till disposal of main petition - Writ petitions are dismissed
1. Challenging the Award passed in I.A. Nos. 63 of 2012 and 53 of 2014 in I.D.(T) No. 4 of 2012 on the file of The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Pondicherry, the Management has filed the above writ petitions.
2. The Management filed a Petition in I.A. No. 53 of 2014 under Rule 10 B of Central Industrial Dispute Rules, 1957 praying an order to record the settlement between the Management and the majority of its workers under Sec.18(1) of Industrial Dispute Act and dismiss the claim petition filed by the Worker's Union on the ground that the issues under reference is resolved between majority of workers and the Management which is binding on the minority workers.
3. Petition in I.A. No. 63 of 2012 was filed by the Workers Union under Sec.10(4) of the Industrial Dispute Act, praying an interim order, directing the respondent to pay the admitted wage increase of Rs.2,806/- per month to the Union Workers with retrospective effect from 7.5.2011 and pay arrears of the interim relief within a stipulated time, pending disposal of the Industrial Dispute.
4. The Industrial Dispute was referred by the Government of Puducherry for adjudication on the claim of the Workers Union based on the charter of demands dated 10.2.2011, which is relating to wage revision and other service conditions. It is not in dispute that the Hindustan Unilever Limited factory is having 121 permanent workers and there are three registered trade unions in the Company's factory.
5. According to the Management, on 4.3.2013, the Company entered into a long term settlement for a period of four years with the National Employee Trade Union under Section 18(1) of Industrial Dispute Act, wherein, all issues relating to increment of wages and all other incidental privileges were mutually agreed upon between the Petitioners Company and the Union. Further, according to the Management, the 18(1) settlement dated 4.3.2013 was circulated amongst the workers by placing them in the Notice Board. The Company extended the benefits of 18(1) settlement to all those workers, who had given written letters, accepting the said settlement.
6. According to the Management, there was absolutely no force, inducement, threat, coercion or enticement to any worker to accept the settlement and the workers had voluntarily came forward to accept the settlement and enjoy its benefits.
7. Further, according to the Management, on 30.4.2014, out of 121 workers, 107 workers gave their written consent, accepting and ratifying the terms and conditions of 18(1) settlement dated 4.3.2013. Further, the Management had stated that though the terms of 18(1) settlement was specific that it shall be extended only on the date of its acceptance, on specific demands from individual workers for payment of ex-gratia for the intervening period between the date of 18(1) settlement and the date of acceptance, the Company agreed for the same and paid ex-gratia amount of Rs.84,950/- to each of the individual workers accepting the terms of settlement, subject to the deduction made for their absence.
8. The Management had also stated that all the amounts are credited to the accounts of the individual workers and they have also utilised those benefits. Further, there cannot be two wage structures and what is good and applicable for majority is also applicable for the minority workers.
9. According to the respondent Union, at the time of raising the above said dispute, there were only two trade Unions viz., (i) HLL Tea Workers Welfare Union and (2) Hindustan Unilever Tea Employees Union, in which, the respondent Trade Union viz., HLL Tea Workers Welfare Union was a majority union, representing the majority workers of the factory and it was also a recognised union.
10. After the respondent trade Union submitted a charter of demand before the Management, demanding wage revision, allowances and other issues such as transfer of workman, compensation in case of permanent closure of factory etc., the Management did not want to concede
