GENERAL MANAGER Vs. GENERAL SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner in O.P.(LC) Nos.25 of 2017 and 19 of 2019, the learned counsel for the petitioners in the writ petitions, the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India and the learned Government Pleader.

(2.) O.P.(LC) No.25 of 2017 is filed challenging Exhibit P15 award passed in ID No.5 of 2013 by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Ernakulam. It is contended by the petitioner in OP(LC) No.25 of 2017 that the company is registered under the Companies Act , 1956 with its registered office at Kota in the State of Rajasthan. It has a unit at Palakkad. It is stated that a settlement revising pay and benefits of the employees of the Palakkad unit from 1.1.1992 to 31.12.1996 was signed between the management and unions in June 1999. Pending negotiations, the management had paid recoverable advance to the employees against the pay revision benefits. It is stated that by the time the settlement was arrived at in June 1999, the pay revision for 1997 also became due. Settlement regarding 1997 pay revision was arrived at and signed only on 3.8.2009 and the pay revision was implemented prospectively only with effect from 23-2-2009. It is stated that in the meanwhile, the company was declared as a sick unit and a scheme for rehabilitation was pending consideration before the BIFR. The unions filed W.P.(C).No.461 of 2010 before this Court challenging the steps taken to recover the amounts paid as advance from the terminal benefits of retiring employees. This Court directed the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Cochin to conciliate the matter. When the conciliation failed, the dispute was referred to Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court.

(3.) The dispute referred was whether the action of the management of M/s.Instrumentation Limited, Palakkad in recovering the advance paid to the employees from their terminal benefits is justified or not?, If not, what reliefs the employees are entitled to? The Tribunal, after hearing the parties, rendered Exhibit P15 award, which is under challenge.