DINESH EXPORTS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is engaged in manufacture of industrial working leather gloves employing around 17 employees. It is stated by the petitioner that the petitioner is 100% export oriented unit and the products are exported to European countries. Petitioner entered into a tripartite settlement dated 31.03.2008 with the workmen in the presence of the Conciliation Officer. As per the settlement, one of the terms agreed upon is that the management will give increment of 17% each on the basic and dearness allowance for the year 2008, 2009 and 2010, respectively. It is also stated in the terms of settlement that the settlement will be in force for the period from 01.04.2008 to 31.03.2011.

(2.) The workmen were aggrieved of the fact that the petitioner decreased the increment from 17% on basic and DA after the said period and started paying the employees at the rate of 10% on basic and DA for the year 2011 and 2012. Being aggrieved the workmen approached the Labour Commissioner seeking redresal of their grievance. The petition / complaint, produced at Annexure-F, does not contain any date. On the other hand, the Office seal of the Labour Commissioner shows that it was received on 25.06.2012. Pursuant to the complaint made by the workmen, the Labour Commissioner issued a show cause notice dated 17.07.2012 calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why action should not be initiated against the petitioner for violation of Section 17A, 18 and 19 along with Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short 'the Act' for brevity) and further why recovery proceedings should not be initiated under Section 33C (1) of the Act. The petitioner had addressed a reply dated 21.07.2012 to the show cause notice. Thereafter, the workmen have addressed a communication dated 13/14.08.2012 to the Labour Commissioner as a re-joinder, thereby it is contended that the action of the management in reducing the increment amounts to violation of mandatory provisions of Section 9A of the Act. After hearing the parties, the Labour Commissioner has proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 22.01.2013. Petitioner, being aggrieved of the impugned order dated 22.01.2013, is before this Court.

(3.) Learned Senior Counsel Sri S.N. Murthy appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order suffers from many defects including violation of the provisions of the Act and therefore, requires to be quashed and set aside. The learned Senior counsel submits that the grievance of the workmen was that the increment, which was granted under the settlement, has not been continued after the expiry of the period stipulated in the settlement, ie., 31.03.2011. When admittedly the terms of the settlement is said to have been violated, the remedy is provided under Section 29 of the Act and the same was referred to by the workmen in the complaint. However, in the re-joinder made by the workmen it was contended that the provisions of Section 9A of the Act was violated and therefore, action should be initiated against the petitioner under Section 9A of the Act. Learned Sr. counsel submits that the provisions of Section 9A of the Act would be attracted only when an employee who proposes to effect any change in the conditions of service applicable to any workmen in respect of any matter specified in the 4th schedule, effected the change without giving the workmen notice in the prescribed manner and without issuing 21 days clear notice. It was therefore, submitted that the provisions of Section 9A of the Act was not attracted in the facts and circumstances of this case. It was also pointed out from the impugned order that there is no application of mind and the impugned order has been passed in a very cavalier manner.