BLUE STAR LIMITED Vs. A F PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-employer is aggrieved by the order dated April 10 1989 (at annexure D to the petition) whereby the demands made by the management and the dispute raised by the management is refused to be referred for adjudication to a forum under the Industrial Disputes Act. The reason given is that the demands are of administrative nature and within the field of the management. Out of 20 demands only about 10 demands were admitted in conciliation and the conciliation had failed. The demand of the employer is to link revision of wages with productivity. The previous settlement was terminated by the Union by notice dated October 31 1987 and the Union had served Charter of Demands on the same day. The employer gave its charter of demand on November 22 1987 The Union gave its reply on April 22 1988 Some 10 of the 20 demands of the employer were admitted in conciliation and there were meeting before the Conciliator and ultimately on June 28 1988 the conciliation had failed and the failure report is at annexure C dated November 7 1988 The demands made by the Union have been referred for adjudication by orders dated February 27 1989 and May 25 1989 As far as the demands of the employer are concerned the Government by its letter dated April 10 1989 refused to refer the same for adjudication. As pointed out earlier the refusal is on the ground that the demand of protectively linked wage revision is the management function. The reason given by the Government for refusing to make reference is clearly illegal and erroneous. The Government seems to have proceeded on the basis that the management can unilaterally introduce such changes sought by its demands as managerial function and the management is not required to have the same settled by conciliation and negotiations or by adjudication. The management has no right to effect changes unilateral in the existing conditions of service and introduce new criteria for wages. Such unilaterally change will be illegal change if introduced by the management. If the management wants such changes to be made it has to be gone through the appropriate channels and machinery under the Industrial Disputes Act. Therefore the reason given by the Government for refusing to make reference is totally illegal.

(2.) Then the next question that arises is what relief can be granted in the present petition. In some cases the Government can be directed to reconsider the matter and take a fresh decision. However in the present case having regard to the fact that the workmen have raised their demand for wage revision in the year 1987 and almost six years have passed it is absolutely necessary that the proceedings for the demands of the workmen proceed expeditiously. As a result of the present petition and the stay granted in this petition not only the proceedings in the reference of the workmens demands are stayed but the application for interim relief is stayed and the workmen are not getting any wage revision or interim revision since six years. It would therefore be in the interest of all concerned that there is expeditiousness in all the proceedings.

(3.) In the result the petition succeeds and rule is made absolute by quashing and setting aside the order dated April 10 1989 at annexure D to the petition refusing to refer the demands of the employer and the respondent authority is directed to reconsider expeditiously the demands of the employer which were admitted in conciliation and to take a fresh decision as regards the demands to be referred for adjudication. The respondent authority is directed to take its decision latest by August 20 1993 Interim relief granted in the petition shall continue till August 20 1993 The Government will give an opportunity to both the parties to produce the material in support of their say and give personal hearing. The petitioner to file its written statement and documents before the authorities within two weeks from today and copy thereof shall be given to the other side. The Union shall file its reply within two weeks thereafter. The authority shall give an opportunity of personal hearing to both the parties before finally passing any order. No order as to costs.