Back
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
R.K.Mahajan
BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LTD
Versus
LABOUR COURT MEERUT
Decided On : 23 December 1997
C. M. W. P. No 4197 of 1984
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES - STANDING ORDERS - INTERPRETATION - APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 11-C OF U. P. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - MAINTAINABILITY - SCOPE OF SECTION 11-C - CHANGE IN STANDING ORDERS - PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED - SETTLEMENT OUTSIDE CONCILIATION PROCEEDINGS - REGISTRATION - REQUIREMENT - INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYMENT (STANDING ORDERS) ACT, 1946 - SECTIONS 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 12-A, 13, 13-A - U. P. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - SECTIONS 4, 6-B, 10, 11-C - INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - SECTIONS 10, 33-C.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a management of a large industrial unit, challenged the award of the Labour Court interpreting a Standing Order reducing leave benefits for new employees. The respondent, a workman, had filed an application under Section 11-C of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, seeking interpretation of the Standing Order.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Labour Court erred in interpreting the Standing Order under Section 11-C of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as the application sought a declaration that the order reducing leave benefits was inoperative and not merely an interpretation of the Standing Order.
Issues: 1. Whether an application under Section 11-C of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is maintainable for enforcing rights or obligations. 2. Whether a change in Standing Orders can be effected without following the procedure prescribed under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. 3. Whether a settlement arrived at outside conciliation proceedings requires registration to be binding under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 11-C of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, allows any employer or workman to refer a question of application or interpretation of a Standing Order certified under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, to the Labour Court for a final and binding decision. 2. The Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, provides a specific procedure for amending Standing Orders, including submission of draft Standing Orders, conditions for certification, and the right of appeal. Any variation of service conditions laid down in Standing Orders must follow this procedure. 3. A settlement arrived at outside conciliation proceedings under Section 6-B of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, requires registration with the Conciliation Officer or a competent authority to be binding. The purpose of registration is to avoid unfair settlements and ensure authenticity.
Final Decision: The Court set aside the Labour Court's award and directed the Central Government, as the appropriate authority, to refer the matter to the Industrial Tribunal within three months for adjudication. The Industrial Tribunal was directed to decide the matter within six months after hearing the parties.
The matter was listed before this Court for vacating the stay order on 22-11-1997 by virtue of which the award of the Labour Court has been stayed. I have heard the writ petition on merits also with the consent of the parties.
2. This writ petition involves inter esting question whether the management can reduce leave to regular new comers w. e. f. 22-3-1974 to the following stage:
Earned Leave. . . 20 days.
Sick leave. . . 10 days
Casual Level. . . 7 days.
As per Standing Order 8-J of B. H. E. L. , Hardwar which entitles them 30 days Earned Leave, 20 days Sick Leave, Festival Holidays 8 days and Casual Leave
12 days without legal formalities in amending Standing Orders in accordance with law.
3. It appears that an application was filed by one Shri H. S. Jauhari before the Labour Court, Meerut under Section 11-C of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1947) for interpretation of the Standing Order as office bearer of the Trade Union. After hearing the parties the Labour Court vide its order dated 29-11-1983 was of the view that there cannot be discrimination with respect to the employees who entered in the service on or before 22-3-1974 and they are entitled to leave as per the Stand ing Order.
4. The order dated 29-11-1983 has been challenged in the present writ peti tion and order was stayed on 20-3-1984. Learned Counsel for the petitioner Shri Tarun Agarwal has made the following submissions which are culled out from the averments in petition and grounds. He firstly submits that the application under Section 11 of the Act of 1947 is not main tainable as it cannot enforce right or obligation. He further submits that rights and liabilities can be adjudicated under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act or Section 4 of the Act of 1947 or Section 33-C of the Industrial Disputes Act. He further submits that unless there is a refer ence regarding change of condition of ser vice as a result of curtailment of holidays the workers cannot get by filing a simple application for enforcement of law. He further submits that there was a settle ment arrived outside the Court which is Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition which relates to minutes of the 22nd meeting of the Joint Committee for B. H. E. L. held in New Delhi. The representatives of the Trade Union and management signed the same and number of holidays are men tioned w. e. f. 1-11-1977. The chart of holidays is given below:
No. of years of service No. of days per annum
1to 5 22 6 to 10 24 11to 15 26 16 to 20 28 Above 20 30 He further submitted that there was no need for registration of the agreement. Another submission which has been raised that the workers have been given holidays according to Indian Factory Act, 1948 and settlement arrived at in 1977 and the respondent No. 2 is not aggrieved party as he was appointed in the year 1964 and his leave is not affected by the amendment of Standing Order 8-J.
5. Shri Tarun Agarwala again sub mitted that in case this matter is decided under Section 11-C of the Act of 1947 there is likelihood of disturbance of in dustrial peace in 9,000 workers at Hardwar and 17,000 workers in different units all over the country.
6. Learned Counsel for the respon dent Shri Tejpal has submitted that the Standing Order could not be changed without following the procedure under In dustrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. In other words the rights affect ing holidays could be changed by a proce dure mentioned in the Industrial Employ ment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1946) and proper certification. It is also pleaded in the counter-affidavit that petition is maintainable by the respondent who is a workman and also is a member of one of the Union, 7. In nut shell the plea of the respon dent is that there cannot be discrimination between the workers who have joined ear lier and who have joined later on except following the proper procedure in the Act of
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
