HINDUSTAN LEVER LTD Vs. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL I

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An answer to a somewhat straightforward question of territorial jurisdiction in an industrial dispute has remained pending for almost fifteen years in this Court and about twenty years overall. While this is disturbing enough, a second round, relating to the merits of the dispute will now commence after the issue of territorial jurisdiction is decided. How long that will take for resolution is another question altogether. I think it is slowly, but surely, becoming critical for all of us to devise some strategy to deal with this mass of arrears so that such enormous delays become a thing of the past.

(2.) The Petitioner's grievance lies in a decision taken in an order dated 4th February, 1989 passed by Industrial Tribunal No.1, New Delhi in O.P. No.22 of 1984. In the impugned order, the learned Tribunal held that an approval application filed by the Petitioner under the provisions of Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the Act) was not maintainable in Delhi. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal dismissed the application without entering into an inquiry on merits.

(3.) It appears that at all relevant times, the Respondent was the Chairman of the Hindustan Lever Mazdoor Sabha, Ghaziabad Unit. He has been involved in considerable litigation with the Petitioner, the relevance of this being apparent a little later. Some of the cases between the parties are: (i) Misc. Case No.37 of 1975 being an application filed by the Respondent under Section 33-C(2) of the Act in the Labour Court, Meerut for recovering dearness allowance payable according to the progressive linkage with the cost of living index. According to the Respondent, this was paid less to him due to a unilateral freeze on the basis of an alleged settlement with another Union. (ii) Industrial dispute No.47 of 1976 in the Labour Court, Meerut later renumbered as No.42 of 1978 in the Labour Court, Ghaziabad raised by the Respondent challenging his transfer by an order dated 26th September, 1975 from Ghaziabad (where he was working) to Delhi. During the pendency of this dispute, the Respondent joined his Branch Office in Delhi, though under protest. (iii) Misc. Case No.1 of 1982 being a complaint filed by the Respondent in January 1982 under Section 33 of the Act read with Section 6F of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act in the Labour Court, Ghaziabad where the dispute relating to his transfer was pending. This complaint arose because the Petitioner froze the dearness allowance and withdrew the canteen facilities hitherto available to the Respondent. (iv) I.D. No.568 of 1983 being an industrial dispute raised by the Petitioner's employees (other than the Respondent) in the Industrial Tribunal, Delhi because the Petitioner froze their dearness allowance and also withdrew their canteen facilities.