GENERAL MANAGER, PALAKKAD UNIT OF INSTRUMENTATION LTD. Vs. GENERAL SECRETARY, INSTRUMENTATION WORKERS UNION

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 advances to the employees against the pay revision benefits. It is stated that by the time this 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 23-2-2019. It is stated that in the meanwhile, the company was declared as a sick unit and 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. 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.

(3.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the 2nd respondent erred in not considering the specific contention that the amounts disbursed were refundable advances and that there were no arrears in respect of the 1997 Pay Revision against which such refundable advances could have been adjusted. It is stated that the company had been declared as a sick Industrial Unit and the BIFR order dated 25.2.2010 specified that benefits of the 1997 wage revision would be applicable only with effect from 23.3.2009 as had been stated by the Central Government. It is stated that Clause 13 of the settlement dated 3.8.2009 specifically refers to adjustable ad hoc payments/advances and recoverable advances. It is, therefore, contended that the amounts were liable to be recovered from the amounts due to the employees in view of the fact that there were no arrears from which adjustments could have been effected. It is further contended that in view of the settlement between the parties, the Tribunal could not have examined the issue as there was no industrial dispute as defined under Section 2(k) of the ID Act which could have been decided by the Tribunal. It is stated that in the facts of the case, the findings and the direction in the award negating the recovery of advances from terminal benefits of the employees was completely unsustainable in law.