Back
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
G. L. Oza, J.
METAL and ENGINEERING WORKERS UNION AITUC BAILAI
Versus
HIMMAT STEEL FOUNDRY LTD
Decided On : May 06,1983
AIR 1982 SC 1473 followed. AIR 1981 SC 2163 and AIR 1977 SC 322 distinguished. [Para 21
(2) Constitution of India - Art. 23-payment of wages less than minimum wage-amounts to violation of this Articles.
1983 Labour and Industrial Cases 312 followed. [Para 22
(3) Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (M.P.) - S.33-constitution of India-Art. 23--registration of agreement under S.33 of the Act-agreement against an award and also against the porvisions of the Act and Article 23 of Constitution- such agreement cannot be registered.
The Registrar shall not register an agreement which is in contravention of the provisions of this Act. It is not in dispute that this agreement supersedes or over rides an award passed by the Industrial Court as modified by the High Court and their Lord, hips of the Supreme Court and this award has been passed under the provisions of this Act and, therefore any agreement which is in contravention of the award apparently will be in contravention of this Act. Apart from it, as has been observed earlier, this agreement violates Art. 23 as has been held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court as the agreement provides for payment of wages less than the minimum wage. It is, therefore, clear that this agreement not being in accordance which law, ought not to have been registered by the Registrar. [Para 23
(4) Industrial Retations Act, 1960 (M.P.) S.33 (c) (Proviso) - agreement registered without application of mind or without enquiry - liable to be quashed.
The Order passed by the Registrar is not before us nor it has been filed and inspite of the fact that the Registrar has been joined as a respondent, he has not chosen to appear in this Court or to file a return or even to file an order which shows that the Registrar has done some kind of enquiry. Arguments no doubt, have been advanced by the learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and respondent No.2 and they have also not been able to produce any order showing any application of mind by the Registrar, apart from any enquiry as is contemplated in the proviso to clause (c) of section 33. It is, therefore, plain that the Registrar proceeded to register the agreement without either holding any enquiry or without the application of mind. It could not be disputed that registering of an agreement of this kind involves rights of workmen employed in an industry and, therefore, it is expected that the Registrar while exercising jurisdietion u/s 33, will apply his mind to the matters in question, specially when the law itself required an enquiry to be held with regard to the matters enumerated in the proviso to clause (c) of section. 33 on this ground also, this registration certificate issued by the registrar has to be quashed.
[Para 24
( 1. ) THIS petition has been filed by the petitioner which claims to be a registered Trade Union of employees in Engineering Industry for the district of Durg. It claims to have the backing of vast majority of employees of respondent No. 1 and it is alleged that majority of the workers in this factory are members of the petitioner Union.
( 2. ) IT is alleged that the Central Government appointed the central Wage Board for engineering industries. Hence, the said Board submitted its recommendations which were accepted by the Government of india and the recommendations were brought into force from 1-1-1969 and were to be implemented 100 per cent by 31-12-1972/1-1-1973.
( 3. ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, the management of the. respondent no. 1 failed to pay wages according to the recommendations of the Wage board and a demand was raised by the petitioner Union and the State government referred the dispute of payment of wages in accordance with the wage Board recommendations to the Industrial Court, Madhya Pradesh, indore. But the Industrial Court rejected the petitioners demand.
( 4. ) THE petitioner, therefore, filed a miscellaneous petition in this court which was M. P. No. 430 /77 and this Court, by its order, dated 13-7-1978 remanded the case to the Industrial Court. It was observed in this judgment while remanding the case that the Wage Boards recommendations were in respect of minimum wages payable to the workman employed in the engineering industry. On remand, the Industrial Court again rejected the claim of the petitioner and the petitioner, therefore, filed another petition which was M. P. No. 106/80 and this Court, by its order dated 8-4-1980, held that grant of additional D. A. in accordance with para 7. 99 of the Wage board recommendations is well founded. The High Court, therefore, quashed the award of the Industrial Court and directed that the workman should be entitled to increase in wages in accordance with the Wage Board recommendations for employees in category-C including the benefit of Additional D. A. given in para 7. 99 of the Recommendations.
( 5. ) THE petitioner as well as respondent No. 1 filed petitions for special leave before Honable the Supreme Court of India and according to the petitioner, their Lordships dismissed the Special Leave petition filed by respondent No. 1 whereas the petition filed by the petitioner was disposed of with the modification that the award was made effective from 1-1-1977 instead of 13-7-1978.
( 6. ) IT is alleged by the petitioner that in spite of the fact that this Court passed the award which was affirmed by the Honble the Supreme Court of India with the further modification about the date, the respondent management refused to make the payment of wages including V. D. A. in accordance with the Wage Board recommendations and it is alleged, therefore, that the petitioner had no choice but to file claim under the Payment of Wages Act before the Payment of Wages Authority, Durg (Labour Court, durg) on the basis of the authority given to the petitioner Union by the Workmen and in this manner, claims in respect of 470 workers were pending before the Payment of Wages Authority (Labour Court, Durg),
( 7. ) IT is alleged that during the pendency of these proceedings, the management of respondent No. 1 were trying to interfere with the Trade union activities of the petitioner and were attempting to set up a rival Union sponsored by them. It is also alleged that the management assured the workmen that they will be paid their dues if they leave the petitioner Union and associate themselves with the rival Union set up by the management and this Union was formed in the name of Durg Jila Engineering Mazdoor Sabha which is arrayed as respondent No. 2 in this petition. This Union was registered on 22-2-1982.
( 8. ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, with a view to defeat the claim of the workers which was being fought at all levels by the petitioner, the management entered into an agreement
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
