New Mangalore Port Trust vs New Mangalore Port Staff Association

H.N. Nagamohan Das, J.—This writ petition is filed calling in question the award dated 12.12.2002 in C.R. No. 31/1987 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Labour Court (for short ''Tribunal'') at Bangalore.

The Respondent-Association represents the workmen in the Petitioner''s Port Trust. The Respondent initiated conciliation proceedings for extending the (sic) scheme to the categories of Tally Clerks, Traffic Inspectors and Assistant Traffic Inspectors who are working along with Cargo Handling Gang Workers. The conciliation proceedings ended in failure and the Central Government referred the dispute between the parties for adjudication u/s 10[2-A] of the I.D. Act to the Tribunal, The schedule of reference is as under:

Whether the Administration of New Mangalore Port Trust is Justified in introducing 2 shift system in respect of operational staff in the Traffic department of New Mangalore Port Trust without paying any extra allowance/over time as is being paid in Cochin Port Trust? If not, to what relief the said workmen are entitled?

Whether the management of New Mangalore Port Trust is justified in not extending the Incentive Scheme to the categories of Tally Clerks, Traffic Inspectors and Assistant Traffic Inspectors, who are working along with Cargo handling Gang Workers? If not, to what relief the said workmen are entitled?

During the pendency of the proceedings before the Tribunal, a joint memo dated 13.01.1989 was filed and the same reads as under:

The parties beg to submit as follows:

1) The parties agree that the National Productivity Council be requested to study and submit a draft scheme for introduction of Incentive Scheme for Tally Clerks, Asst. Traffic inspectors, Traffic Inspector working in New Mangalore.

2) Three months time be given to N.F.C. to submit the fraft Scheme subject to extension by this Hon''ble Court, if necessary.

3) The N.P.C. shall consult the I Party Union while (sic) the Scheme and Union''s views shall be given due consideration while finalising the scheme.

The terms of reference to N.P.C. shall be

(i) What shall be the mode (sic) of Incentive Wage.

(ii) What shall be the basis for calculating the Incentive wages.

(iii) Identification of areas of work allotted to Tally Clearks, A.T.Is. and T.Is. for the entitlement of Incentive Wages.

(4) The draft scheme submitted by the N.P.C. will be filed before this Hon''ble Tribunal and final award may he passed after hearing the parties on the draft schema.

Accordingly, the Tribunal referred the issue to frame a draft Incentive scheme on the controversy between parties to the National Productivity Council (N.P.C). Accordingly, the N.P.C. submitted a report as per Annexure ''H''. After hearing both, the parties, the Tribunal passed an award on 01.07.1988 as per Annexure ''C'' declaring that the Respondent-workmen are entitled for incentive scheme. This award as per Annexure ''C'' had became final Therefore there is no controversy between the parties with regard to entitlement of incentive scheme benefits by the Respondent-workmen.

Since, the matter was pending for a long time, by way of interim arrangement, the Tribunal passed an Interim Order dated 22.07.1989 as per Annexure ''D'' directing the payment of interim relief at 50% of the average earnings of directly employed tally clerks. This interim payment is subject to the final decision in the matter.

When, the matter stood at this stage, the Petitioner''s trust framed draft scheme with regard to the quantum of entitlement of Respondent-workmen and communicated a letter on 20.06.1096 as per Annexure ''R1'' to the Respondent-Association to give their approval. Accordingly, the Respondent gave their approval by filing a memo on 19.09.1996 before the Tribunal as per Annexure ''D''. To the memo filed by the Respondent-Association, the Petitioner has not tiled any objections. The Petitioner''s Board in their meeting held on 28.06.1996 accepted the draft scheme and sent it to the Government of India, for its approval as per Annexure ''M''. The Government of India by their communication dated 20.08.1997 replied to the Petitioner stating that as per the All India Settlement dated 06.12.1994 the Petitioner can take a decision with, regard to the local matters touching the issue of local workers without any repercussion on any other Port.

The Tribunal by considering this material on record passed the impugned order directing the Petitioner to pay incentives to the Respondent-workmen as per their scheme Ex.W19 which is accepted by the Respondent Association. Hence this writ petition.

I heard arguments on both the side and perused entire writ papers.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner fairly submits that the issue relating to the entitlement of incentive scheme benefits by the Respondent-workers as held by the Tribunal in its award dated 01.07.1988 as per Annexure ''C'' had became final and there is no controversy between the parties in this regard. The only controversy between the parties is with regard to the (sic) of incentive benefit, The N.P.C. report specifies that the Respondent-workmen are entitled for 50% of average earnings of directly employed tally clerks. On the basis of this N.P.C. report, the Tribunal passed an order on 22.07.1989 as per Annexure ''D'' directing payment of 50% average earnings subject to the final outcome in the dispute. It is further seen that both the parties have filed their objections with regard to the quantum of payment suggested, by the N.P.C. in its report.

When the matter stood at this stage, the Petitioner voluntarily evolved a draft scheme with regard to the quantum of incentive benefit to the Respondent-workmen. Further, its seen that the Petitioner wrote to the Respondent as per Annexure ''R1'' dated 20.06.1996 to offer their views with, regard, to the draft scheme, The Respondent-Association offered their views agreeing to the draft scheme proposed by the Petitioner. Subsequently on 28.06.1996, Petitioner''s Board passed a resolution accepting, the draft scheme subject to approval of the Central Government, Consequent to the resolution passed by the Petitioner''s Board, the Respondent filed a memo on 19.09.1996 as per Annexure ''L'' before the Tribunal to pass an award in terms of the draft scheme proposed by the Petitioner. The chronology of events manifestly establishes the fact that the report submitted by the N.P.C. with regard to the quantum of incentive entitlement had become redundant.

Since, the Petitioner proposed the draft scheme with regard to the quantum of entitlement, the same is accepted by the Respondent and further the Petitioner''s Board passed a resolution on 28.06.1996, the same is binding on the Petitioner and the Respondent There is an offer by the Petitioner and the same is accepted by the Respondent and as such there is a conclude settlement between the parties and binding on them.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that the Board resolution dated 28.06.1996 accepting the scheme of entitlement is subject to the approval of Central Government and the same is not given and as such they are not bound by it. I decline to accept this contentions of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Reacting to the requests of the Petitioner, the Central Government by their communication dated 20.08.1997, has not rejected the proposal sent by the Petitioner. On the other haul, the Central Government in their communication dated 20.08.1997 as per Annexure ''C'' specifies that the issues relating to local workers can be decided by the local Port without any repercussion on any other Port. I do not see there will be any repercussion on the other Parts pursuing to the scheme adopted by the Petitioner. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the Tribunal by considering this material on record rightly passed impugned order directing the Petitioner to pay the (sic) benefits to the Respondent-workmen as per the scheme Ex.W19, I find no illegality or perversity in the impugned award, Accordingly, the writ petition is hereby dismissed.