GUJARAT PETROFILLS EMPLOYEES Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Learned. Advocate for the parties. The petitioner, the registered Trade Union of the employees of the second respondent, have approached this Court by way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for seeking appropriate writ, order, or direction to the respondents for making payment of arrears of wages from 1992 to 30.6.1996, pursuant to the settlement and award of the competent Tribunal in terms thereto dated 305.1996 in reference IT No. 79/1994.

(2.) The settlement however, in the last para, which is reproduced on page No. 52, point No. 35 contained provisions with regard to settlement being arrived at, subject to approval of the Board, the Tribunal and Government of India. In short, the condition was incorporated in the settlement itself that the terms of the settlement were intended to be approved by the Board i.e. governing board of the respondent No. 2 society. The Tribunal, before which the reference was pending and the Government of India as an approving authority of respondent No. 2, the Board in its earnestness approved the said settlement, but, it was under impression that the settlement before it becomes operative was required to be approved by the Government of India also and accordingly, sent proposal to the Government of India with its recommendation for approving and implementing the settlement, which had taken the shape of award between the parties under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Government of India, in turn informed the Board, i.e. the Management of respondent No. 2 that the settlement in respect of such kind of wage settlement are not anymore required to be approved by the Government of India as the Government of India is not extending any budgetary support to such settlement or wage revisional demands and therefore, while effecting the wage revision after negotiation, the two broad factors should be borne in mind viz. the wage revision, if approved, may not result into increasing the production cost and ultimate price of the produce and the second thing is it should be depend upon its own fund generating capacity. Thus, the requirement of approval, which was thought to be impediment of parting the settlement was not evident and Union of India clearly informed the respondent No. 2 this fact. Therefore, the Board of respondent No. 2 in its meeting being No. 143 resolved unanimously that in light of the communication received from the Government of India, the wage revision is effected from the given date, but the payment of arrears would be made dependent upon the availability of internal generation of the funds of the society.

(3.) The wages from the current period got revised and in terms of revised wage scale, the employees started receiving the scale on the basis of the revised wage scale. In other words, the settlement was given effect to the arrears. The question of payment of arrears was some or the other not addressed to and ultimately it so happened that the winding up proceedings had to set in and as a result whereof, the unit was required to be closed. The approval for closure was also obtained and a scheme, which is popularly known as voluntarily separation scheme, originally framed by the Government of India, in respect of public sector enterprises was required to be offered to the employees of the respondent No. 2 society also. It was made clear to all and ultimately pursuant thereto an undertaking was obtained from the individual, incorporating of a condition that the employee has clear understanding that he shall have no claim or seek any right including that all employment, even as per the society rules and the dues are paid as per the Government of India's guidelines incorporated on 18.12.2000, vide its communication. Thus, communication in form of undertaking is sought to be made basis for denying arrears of claim, coupled with other submissions qua non entitlement of employees to receive the arrears as the arrears claim coupled with other submissions qua non entitlement of employees to receive the arrears as the arrears was made specifically conditional and dependent upon the internal generation of funds. The respondent No. 2 is under the litigation and the official liquidator as defendant, which has been joined as respondent No. 4, who stand on behalf of respondent No. 2.