Federal Mogul Bearing India Limited vs State of H.P. and others

The petitioner aggrieved by the award of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court (for short ''Labour Court'') has filed the present petition for the following substantial reliefs:

a) A writ in the nature of certiorari be issued to quash and set aside the award dated 3.3.2014, passed in Reference No.97 of 2009, in reference titled as Gabriel Employees Union (INTUC) Vs Madan Lal Contractor and another, by the Industrial Tribunalcum- Labour Court Shimla) (Annexure P-1).

b) Answer the reference No. 97 of 2009 titled as Gabriel Employees Union (INTUC) Vs. Madan Lal Contractor and another in negative against the respondent No.2."

The reference made by the appropriate Government to the Labour Court reads thus:

"Whether the financial demands raised by the President/General Secretary, Gabriel Employees Union, INTUC, Parwanoo, District Solan, H.P. vide demand notice dated 7.11.2006 (copy enclosed), before the management of M/s Gabriel India Ltd. Plot No.5, Sector 2, Parwanoo and Sh. Madan Lal Contractor of M/s Federal Mogul Bearings India Ltd., Sector-II, Parwanoo, District Solan, H.P. are legal, reasonable and justified? If yes, what financial benefits the canteen workmen are entitled to as per said demand notice, if not, what are its legal effects?"

The Labour Court, after framing the issues answered the reference in favour of the workmen and held them to be entitled to the following financial benefits from the petitioner:

"Increase in basis pay + annual increment w.e.f. 1.10.2006, Rs. 500/- per year.

Increase in D.A. w.e.f. 1.10.2006, Rs. 400/- per year.

Increase in washing allowance, w.e.f. 1.10.2006 Rs. 80/- per year.

Increase in Education allowance w.e.f. 1.10.2006, Rs. 100/- per year.

Increase in heat allowance w.e.f. 1.10.2006, Rs. 25/- per year.

Increase in annual leaves at par with the instructions notifications, issued by the government, from time to time, regarding the workers, working in the various establishments."

Adverting to the award, it would be noticed that the only reason accorded by the learned Labour Court for granting these reliefs is contained in para 17 of the award. The relevant portion whereof reads thus:

".17. Now, the question arises as to whether the demands raised by the petitioner union are reasonable and justified. In the petition, it has been mentioned that there had been two settlements, annexure P-3 and P-4, between the parties Ex.P-3, is the demand notice/letter for the increase of wages. Ex.P 4, is the memorandum of settlement dated 1.3.2005. Its perusal goes to show that as per its terms and conditions, the parties had agreed that the duration for the applicability of this settlement was for five years i.e. 1.10.2001 to 30.9.2006. It is further borne out that during the currency of this settlement, financial benefits were to be available to the workmen, as per there mention, given therein. In the evidence of Dwarka Nath (PW-1), it has come that demand notice dated 7.11.2006, had been raised by the petitioner. The perusal of this demand notice goes to show that the workers, through its union, had demanded increase in basic pay to the tune of Rs. 2500/-, D.A. Rs. 2000/-, washing allowance Rs. 300/-, Education allowance Rs. 500/- heating allowance Rs. 200/-. There was also demand to increase LTA by Rs. 1000/- and also to increase loan on all kinds by Rs. 25000/-. The annual allowance be increased by Rs. 200/- and bonus be given to the extent of 30%. In the evidence of Madan Lal (RW-1), it has come that the workers are being paid the same salary/wages which they were getting in the year, 2006. He admitted that demand notice Ex.P-6, had been served upon him by workers union. He admitted that on 28.9.2001, a demand notice had been given to the company, the copy of which is Ex.P-5. As per this demand notice, he had entered into a settlement with the workers. From the evidence, which has been referred to above, it is quite clear that there has been no increase in the wages of the works since, 2006. Memorandum of settlement dated 1.3.2005, Ex.P-4, which had come in to operation w.e.f. 1.10.2001 to 30.9.2006, has came to an end. The workers through its union, in my view, are justified to seek increase in their basic pay + annual increment, DA etc. as mentioned above w.e.f. 1.10.2006, when the terms and conditions of the earlier settlement came to an end. The workers have sought an increase in the basic pay to the tune of Rs. 2500/- and annual increment to the tune of Rs. 200/-. Having regard to the inflation, which has taken place, this demand appears to be reasonable and justified. The increase in basic pay + annual increment can be given w.e.f. 1.10.2006. Similarly, the demand of the workers for DA in the sum of Rs. 2000/-, is also held to be justified. Another demand of the workers is for increase in their annual leave. In this regard, no specific evidence has been led but still I am of the view that they (petitioners) should be entitled for increase in annual leave at par with the government instructions/notifications, issued from time to time, regarding the workers, working in the various establishments. I further hold that their other demands for washing allowance, education allowance, heat allowance, as per their demand notice Ex.P-6, are also reasonable and justified."

It would be clearly evident from the aforesaid that the reasons as given by the learned Labour Court are not legally sound. In the fixation of wages and dearness allowance, the legal position is well established that it has to be done on an industrial-cumregion basis having due regard to the financial capacity of the unit under consideration (Express Newspaper Private Limited Vs Union Of India, AIR 1958 SC 578, Greaves Cotton And Co Ltd Vs Workmen, AIR 1964 SC 689 and Bengal Chemical And Pharmaceutical Works Ltd Vs Workmen, AIR 1969 SC 360).

That apart, it is evidently clear from the award that the same does not deal with the factual and legal aspects of the matter. For example, the specific plea of the petitioner herein before the Labour Court was that the respondents were not its employees and were the employees of the Canteen Contractor. Though those findings have been answered in favour of the workman, but the evidence of the material witnesses, more particularly, RW-2 has not been discussed. There is no gain that only if the respondents are held to be the employees of the petitioner and then alone can their claim be considered on merits in accordance with law.

Additionally, it would be noticed that the specific case of the petitioner was that the dispute raised by the workman was not even included in the charter of demand and thus not maintainable before the Labour Court.

All these pleas appear to have been sidelined by the Labour Court and answered in a slipshod and cursory manner little realizing that the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal is a final court of fact in industrial disputes and its findings can be interfered with, under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, only if these findings are perverse or not based on legal evidence.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court has no option but to remit back the award to the Labour Court for fresh adjudication. The parties, through their counsel, are directed to appear before the Labour Court on 29.5.2017. The learned Labour Court will afford an opportunity to the parties to place on record any additional material, if so desired. As the industrial dispute is nearly a decade old, therefore, it is expected that the same would be disposed of as expeditiously as possible and in no event later than 30.9.2017.

The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

However, before parting, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merit of the case and view, if any expressed, is solely for the purpose of disposal of this case.