Back
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
P.V. Dixit, C.J. and R.J. Bhave, J.
SHEO NARAYAN CHOUDHARI
Versus
INDUSTRIAL COURT A W KANWADIKAR
Decided On : Sep 21,1966
While considering the provisions of the Industrial Relations Act, 1960, one cannot overlook the underlying principle of the Act which is collective bargaining. The Act recognizes the fact that labour is organized in most industries; and if labour is organized in any industry, then its union is the most appropriate body to act and appear for labour in its representative capacity, and proceeds on the basis that redress of grievances should not be individual but should be collective. The provisions of section 31 have been enacted on this basic principle. [Para 8]
(2) Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (M.P.) - Ss. 31(1) & 31(2) - Schedule 1 –Item No.9 -scope of schedule I - does not cover matters relating to all individual employee but relates to employees as a class – ‘wage’ in item no. 9 - refers to wage scale of labourers as a class-scope of sub-sections (1) & (2) of section 31.
A glance at the items specified in Schedule I is sufficient to show that Schedule I enumerates the industrial matters in which the employees as a class are interested. Item No. 9, when it speaks of "wages including the period and mode of payment" refers to wage scale of labourers as a class and not to wages of an individual employee. That the industrial matters specified in Schedule I are of general interest to all the employees and not of particular interest to an individual employee becomes clear from the fact that, as provided by sub-section (1) of section 31, notice of a change in an industrial matter mentioned in Schedule I has to be given to the representative of employees and not to any particular employee. [Para 8]
Section 31 (1) of the Act is concerned with a change in an industrial matter which affects the employees as a class, Like-wise, section 31(2) is also concerned with industrial matters affecting employees as a class. [Para 9]
Item No.9 of Schedule I does not cover the grievance of an individual employee about his wages. [Para 9]
(3) Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (M. P.) – Ss. 31(1), 34 & 61 - reduction of wages of an individual employee-is not an illegal change within the meaning of section 34 -declaration that the change is illegal cannot be sought under section 61.
In case the employer reduces the wages of an employee without following the procedure laid down in section 31 (1), it cannot be held that the change amounted to illegal change within the meaning of section 34 of the Act, and no application lies on behalf of the employee under section 61 of the Act for declaration of that change to be illegal and for the withdrawal of that change. [Para 10]
(4) Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (M.P.) - Sch. II, Item 6 - wages of an individual employee - fall under Item 6.
The term "employment" as used in Hem No.6 is wide enough to include any matter relating to wages of an individual employee. [Para 11]
(5) Industrial Relation Act, 1960 (M. P.) - Ss. 31(3), 34, 61 & Sch. II, item 6 – reduction of wages of an individual employee -the employee should approach the employer first -no such approach made-application in labour Court not tenable.
The matter of reduction in the wages of an individual employee falls under Item No.6 of Schedule II. Such employee can move the Labour Court only after approaching the employer with a request for a change, in accordance with the proviso to section 31 (3). If such approach is not made, the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to entertain an application under section 61 of the Act. AIR 1955 Bom. 177, AIR 1955 Bom. 369 relied on. [Para 11]
( 1. ) THE two petitioner, who are employed as masons in the Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, filed separate applications under Section 61 of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), in the labour court, Raipur, for restoration of the reduction effected by the management, namely, respondent 3, the General Manager of the Hindustan Steel, Ltd. , in their wages as a measure of punishment after finding that some charges had been established against them.
( 2. ) THE labour court found that the reduction in the wages of the applicants was an " 1llegal change " within the meaning of Section 34 of the Acc and accordingly made an order directing respondent 3 to withdraw the " change " and restore the reduction in the wages of the petitioners. Thereupon, respondent 3 preferred revision petitions before the industrial court, Indore, against the common decision of the labour court granting the petitioners applications under Section 61 of the Act. The industrial court took the view that the matter of the reduction of the petitioners waged was an industrial matter as specified in Schedule II to the Act and consequently the petitioners who desired to have the out in their wages restored could move the labour court for that purpose only under Section 31] (3) of the Act after approaonlng the employer with a request for tae change and if no agreement was reached in respect of the change within the prescribed parlor; and that as admittedly the petitioners did not approach the employer as required by the proviso to Sub-section (3) of Section 31, the labour court had no Jurisdiction to entertain their applications. The industrial court also held that the reduction in the petitioners wages did not amount to an illegal change as defined by Section 31 of the Act, On this view, the in Justrial court set aside the decision of the labour court and dismissed the petitioners applications.
( 3. ) THE question raised by this petition is whether the petitioners applications under Section 61 of the Act for a restoration of the cut in their wages were maintainable. That question has to be answered on a consideration of the effect of certain pro visions of the Act to which a reference must first be made. Section 2 (7) of the Act defines " change " as meaning "an alteration in an industrial matter. " The definition of "industrial matter" as given by Section 2 (18) is that it means any matter relating to employment, work, wages, hours of work, privileges, rights or duties of employers or employees, or the mode, terms and conditions of employment or refusal to employ and includes. . . . Section 31 of the Act runs thus;
31. Notice of change.- (1) An employer intending to effect any change in respect of an industrial matter specified in Son. I shall give notice of such intention in the prescribed form and manner to the representative of employees and to such other persons as may be prescribed. (2) A representative of employees desiring a change in respect of an industrial matter, which is neither covered by standing orders nor is specified in Schedule If. shall give notice thereof in the prescribad manner to the employer concerned and to such other persons as may be prescribed. (3) A representative of employees or an employee desiring a change in respect of an industrial matter specified in Sch II or any other matter arising out of such change may make an application to labour court in such manner as may be prescribed:
Provided that no such application shall lie unless the representative of employees or the employee, as the case may be, has in the prescribed manner approached the employer with the request for the change and no agreement has been arrived at in respect of the change within the prescribed period. An "illegal change" has been defend by Section 34 as meaning a change in any standing order made except in accordance with the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1961. a
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
