TATA CHEMICALS LIMITED Vs. WORKMEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave is directed against the award dated February 21, 1977 of the Industrial Tribunal Gujarat in reference No. 13 of 1975 made on January 21, 1975, by the Government of Gujarat in exercise of its powers under S. 10 (1) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (XIV of 1947) hereinafter called the Act") for adjudication of the dispute relating to five demands viz. Washing Allowance, Woollen Jersey, Unclean Allowance, Transport Allowance and Variable Dearness Allowance, linked with Ahmedabad cost of living index and adequate dearness allowance equal to that of textile workers of Ahmedabad (which is 100%, neutralisation) sponsored by the Chemicals Kamdar Sangh. Mithapur (hereinafter referred to as "the Sangh").

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts leading to the appeal are:The appellant is a public limited company registered under the Indian Companies Act and has its factory at Mithapur in the State of Gujarat. As per its practice and policy of recognising and negotiating with the Union enjoying the support of largest number of its workers, it carried on its dealings with the Sangh (which was the recognised union) till January 25, 1973 when the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Ahmedabad declared as a result of the verification made by him that the Tata Chemicals Employees" Union (hereinafter referred to as the Employees" Union) was entitled to be recognised under the Code of Discipline in view of the fact that 55% of the total number of the employees of the concern were its members and addressed a communication to the appellant requesting it to recognise the said union. Pursuant to this communication, the appellant accorded recognition to the Employees" Union with effect from January 25. 1973. Thereupon the Sangh filed a Special Civil Application challenging the aforesaid order of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour in the High Court of Gujarat which was summarily rejected vide order dated April, 3, 1973, On June 18, 1973, the Employees" Union submitted a charter of demands to the appellant which included inter alia a demand for dearness allowance at 100% of Ahmedabad Cotton Textile Rate popularly known as the Textile Dearness Allowance. In respect of these demands, the Conciliation Officer summoned a conciliatory meeting for July 26, 1973. Meanwhile on July, 9, 1973, the Sangh representing about 800 workmen of the concern submitted the aforesaid charter of demands before the management which also included a demand for Dearness Allowance as paid to the workers of the Cotton Textile Industry. The charter also contained an intimation to the management of the Sangh"s intention to resort to strike for realisation of its demands. As negotiations between the parties for an amicable settlement did not prove fruitful, the Sangh wrote to the Conciliation Officer, Rajkot, on July 17, 1973 requesting him to intervene. After preliminary discussions with both the parties, the Conciliation Officer admitted the case for conciliation on August 30, 1973. As the conciliation proceedings held by him from time to time between September 7, 1973 and November 6, 1973 (to which Employees" Union was also made a party at its request) did not lead to a settlement between the parties, the Conciliation Officer submitted his Failure Report to the State Government on December 14, 1973. On even date, the appellant arrived at an agreement with the Employees" Union in respect of the demands submitted by the latter on behalf of its daily rated and monthly rated members including clerical staff. It was agreed between the parties to this settlement that it would remain in force for a period of three years with effect from January 1, 1974. A notice with regard to the settlement with the Employees; Union was put up on general notice board by the appellant on December 17, 1973. On January 21, 1975, the State Government made, as already stated. a reference to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication of the dispute respecting the aforesaid demands raised by the Sangh. In the course of the reference proceedings, the Employees" Union adopted a nebulous and shifting stand. In its anxiety to maintain its status as the recognised majority union having the sole right of collective bargaining and settling industrial disputes, it insisted in the first instance on its right to actively participate in the proceedings and inter alia questioned the right of the Sangh to raise the demand with regard to V. D. A. as also the right of the Government to refer the demand for adjudication alleging that earlier in 1968 when it raised a demand for 100% textile Dearness Allowance, the Sangh resisted the same and entered into a settlement with the appellant Company on July 31, 1969 for a period of five years. Later on abandoning its initial stand, it supported the demand of the Sangh averring that having regard to the huge profits made by the appellant Company over the years, the workmen were entitled to payment of Dearness Allowance not only on the lines of the Textile Dearness Allowance but a still higher Dearness Allowance like that of the employees in the Bombay Head Office of the appellant Company.

(3.) In the written statement filed by it, the appellant Company not only challenged the locus standi of the Employees" Union to raise any demand on behalf of the workmen or to support the demands raised by the Sangh in view of the aforesaid settlement dated December 14, 1973 but also maintained that in view of the said settlement which continued to be in operation, the Sangh was precluded from raising any dispute in respect of the demands which were the subject-matter of reference to the Tribunal for adjudication. It further contended that as the benefit accruing from the settlement had been and was being taken by all the workmen, the reference was incompetent and the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the demands incorporated therein. While it resisted the first four demands raised by the Sangh on mere technicalities, with regard to the demand for Variable Dearness Allowance, the appellant Company averred that in view of the fact that all the employees were being paid Dearness Allowance in accordance with the recommendation of the Central Wage Board for the Heavy Chemicals and Fertiliser Industry and that neutralisation in the increase in cost of living under the said scheme of payment in case of group-I factories was not cent per cent but was equivalent to 92 per cent, the demand for Variable Dearness Allowance was not valid. The appellant further urged that in the matter of fixation of Dearness Allowance, the formula of Industry-cum-Region was to be adhered to and the total pay packet of the comparable concerns in the region had to be taken into consideration.