Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 33407
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ, J
KARNATAKA GENERAL LABOUR UNION (R) – Appellant
Versus
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 9465 OF 2022 (L-RES)
For the Appellants/Petitioners:SRI. CLIFTON D'ROZARIO, ADVOCATE OF MANTHAN LAW
For the Respondents: SRI. H. SHANTHI BHUSHAN, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA FOR R1 AND R2, SRI. BHOJEGOUDA T. KOLLER, AGA FOR R3 & R4
Settlements made during conciliation proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act are binding, and employers must not alter service conditions of employees during disputes without prior approval.
Headnote:(A) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 25Q, 25U, 31, and 33 - Writ petition for re-employment of 80 workers, challenging alleged unfair practices by employer - The petitioner claimed that 5th respondent engaged in unfair labor practices by denying employment due to union activities and entered into sham contracts with contractors. Court upheld the binding nature of settlements reached during conciliation but noted concerns over the lack of employer-employee relations. Court found the delays in re-employment unjust and directed conciliation proceedings to resume. (Paras 1-23)
(B) Procedural compliance - The court emphasized that during any industrial dispute, the conditions of service must remain unchanged. The employer must seek prior permission for any changes concerning workers involved in the dispute. (Paras 19.1-22.1)
Findings of Court:
The writ petition was partly allowed, and the case was referred to the Conciliation Officer for a renewed attempt to resolve disputes. (Results of the issues discussed lead to a directive for quicker resolution of complaints). (Issue raised over the binding effect of conciliatory settlements was affirmed.)
Result: Writ petition partly allowed.
ORDER
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:
a) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 5th Respondent to immediately undertake the re- employment of all 80 workers (as per Annexure-A) in its establishment at Bengaluru, without prejudice to their claims for regularization, with payment of wages w.e.f. 01.12.2022
b) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to the 5th Respondent to continue with the guised contract workers in their respective posts till they are replaced by regularly selected candidates or until they succeed in their claims for regularization.
c) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to the 3rd Respondent to take immediate action and prosecute the 5th Respondent for violation of Sections 25Q , 25U and 31 as detailed in the complaint dated 02.12.2021 (placed as Annexure-Q)
d) Issue any other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case including the costs of this writ petition, to meet the ends of justice.
FACTS:
2. The petitioner is a Trade Union registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926, who claims to be a sole bargaining agent for the workers guised as contract workers employed with respondent No.5-Indian Telephone Limited. The petitioner claims that 5th respondent has refused employment to 80 workers since 1.12.2021 though they had been employed in the services of 5th respondent for a period of 3 to 38 years. The petitioner claims that the 5th respondent, a Government Company is a Central Public Sector undertaking functioning under the control of 1st respondent-Department of Telecommunications. 5th Respondent has 25 Marketing centres in India and at about 17 manufacturing locations manufacturing a range of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) products/solutions and Encryption Products. The petition has been filed challenging the illegal and untenable actions of respondent No.5 in refusing employment to 80 workers since 1.12.2021 though they have been employed and in the services of respondent No.5 for 3 to 38 years. It is contended that the same is done so as to deny the legitimate rights of the workman.
3. It is alleged that 5th respondent has engaged in gross unfair labour practice by entering into sham contracts with various contractors who are mere name lenders to camouflage relationship of employer-employee with those workers. The petitioner-Union espoused the cause of 80 workmen on account of 5th respondent refusing employment to 80 workers since 1.12.2021.
CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER-UNION:
4. Sri.Clifton Rizario, learned counsel for the petitioner- Union submits that,
4.1. Though these workmen have been guised as contract workers, they are in-fact permanent employees of the 5th respondent performing core work of engineers, quality assurance, quality test, lab assistants, data processing, finance, drivers, office assistants, etc. many of whom have been engaged in several defence projects.
4.2. Amongst various projects these workmen have been engaged in the Advanced Data Processing Research Institute (ADPRI) is a part of ISRO, engaged in the defence communication network Army Static Switched Communication Network - IV (ASCON-IV) with Indian Army with Assam Rifles for production of IP Encryptors used for satellite communication. Engaged in Network for Spectrum, Multi-Channel Encryption Unit; Production, installation and maintenance of Military Pulse Code Modulation for the Indian Army. All these works have been carried out by the workmen on account of contracts entered into between the 5th respondent and those entities and the 5th respondent deputed the workmen to carryout the aforesaid services.
4.3. Many of the workmen have also been deputed for outstation work on several sensitive projects with DRDO, UIDAI, Defence Department and have travelled to all parts of the country on the work of 5th respondent.
4.4. On the basis of above, he submits that the workmen perform core and
