GANDHIDHAM NAGARPALIKA Vs. R C ISRANI INDUSTRIES TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The grievance voiced by the petitioner in this petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India relates to non-acceptance of the settlement arrived at between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 in toto by the Industrial Tribunal while making its award on 24/10/1979 in Reference (IT) No. 18 of 1978.

(2.) It may be mentioned at this stage that this petition is purported to have been made both under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. What is challenged in this petition as aforesaid is the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal. Such award can be challenged only under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in view of the Division Bench ruling of this Court in the case of Jashubhai Hiralal Gandhi v. Competent Authority & Deputy Collector Ahmedabad and Others reported in 1990 Gujarat Law Herald at page 609. We are in respectful agreement with the view taken by the Division Bench in the case of Jashubhai Hiralal Gandhi (supra). In that view of the matter we treat this petition as only under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) The facts giving rise to this petition may be summarised thus: The petitioner is a Municipality deemed to have been constituted under the Gujarat Municipalities Act 1963 Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 are two trade unions representing different employees working in the petitioner-Municipality. The Industrial Tribunal in its impugned award has styled respondent No. 2 as the sponsoring union and respondent No. 3 as the second union for the sake of convenience. For the purpose of this judgment we adopt the same phraseology for describing these two rival unions arraigned as respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in this petition. It appears that on implementation of the recommendations of what is popularly known as the Desai Pay Commission through the framing of the Gujarat Civil Services (Revision of Pay) Rules 1975 the sponsoring union submitted a charter of demands for revision of the pay scales of various categories and classes of employees serving in the petitioner-Municipality. It appears that the conciliation proceedings undertaken with respect to the charter of demands failed. Thereupon at the joint request of the parties an industrial dispute was raised by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour at Rajkot and it was referred to under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (the Act for brief) to the Industrial Tribunal for its adjudication. It came to be registered as Reference (IT) No. 18 of 1978. Thereupon the sponsoring union filed its statement of claim at Exh. 2 on the record of the adjudication proceedings. It appears that the second union wanted to be a party to the reference proceedings. It transpires from the impugned award that the second union made an application at Exh. 3 in the reference proceedings for being joined as a party thereto. It appears that on acceptance of that application the second union became party to the reference proceedings and submitted its statement of claim at Exh. 9 in the reference proceedings. The petitioner-Municipality appears to have filed its reply at Exh. 13 therein. It appears that during the pendency of the reference proceedings the sponsoring union and the petitioner-Municipality negotiated over the settlement of their disputes and ultimately arrived at some settlement. That settlement was submitted to the Industrial Tribunal for passing its award in terms thereof. A copy of this settlement is at Exh. 16 on the record of the reference proceedings. Since the second union was not a party to the settlement the Industrial Tribunal thought it fit to hear the second union on this settlement. In the meantime some three individual workmen filed their objections indicating that the settlement was neither just nor reasonable. The three individual objectors to the settlement included respondents Nos. 4 and 5 in this petition. Their objections were taken on record in the reference proceedings at Exhs. 20 21 and 22. Thereupon the petitioner-Municipality filed its reply to the said objections at Exh. 23 on the record of the reference proceedings. It appears that the second union also filed its objections to the settlement on the very same day when the reply at Exh. 23 was filed by the petitioner-Municipality on 4/01/1979. The objections filed by the second union appears to have been taken on record at Exh. 26 in the reference proceedings. It appears that the parties did not want to lead any evidence in support of their rival pleas contained in their respective statements of objection or reply. They thereupon filed a joint purshis at Exh. 27 on the record of the reference proceedings declaring their desire not to lead any evidence in the proceedings. After hearing the parties the learned Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal by his award passed on 24/10/1979 in Reference (IT) No. 18 of 1978 was pleased to accept the settlement to the extent it pertained to the workmen of the petitioner- Municipality except respondents Nos. 4 and 5 herein. For these two respondents the award suggested two different pay-scales. This aggrieved the petitioner-Municipality and has therefore questioned the correctness of fixation of two different pay-scales for respondents Nos. 4 and 5 in this petition in the impugned award. A copy of the impugned award is at Annexure-A to this petition.