MANAGEMENT OF THE KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE SPINNING MILLS LTD Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CITY CIVIL COURT BUILDINGS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE brief facts depicting factual matrix of the matter are as under: 1. (i) THE appellant Management is a Co-operative Society registered under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act. It is having a spinning mills at Aramboly. It has a spindle capacity of 25,000 spindles. It employs about 714 permanent workmen. It has been functioning right from 1965. 1. (ii) In the year 1969 the Government of India thought to rehabilitate Sri Lanka Repartriates. One of such measures was that they should be considered for employment in Co-operative Spinning Mills and other industrial establishments. THE Director of Rehabilitation, Government of India administers the scheme of assistance and appropriate directions are given from time to time to the State Director of Rehabilitation, who in turn gives directions to the Director of Handlooms who controls the co-operative spinning mills as to the woes of repatriates and grant financial assistance. THEy were employed as such irrespective of their qualification or experience and the object of providing employment is to rehabilitate them. 1. (iii) In pursuance to the above said events certain repatriates from Sri Lanka were employed in the appellant Mills as workers. THE second and third respondents' union represents those workmen also. 1. (iv) In the claim statement filed by the Kanyaspin Thozhilar Sangam before the Industrial Tribunal, Madras, it is stated that the repatriate workers, should be paid occupational wages. Since the said demand was refused by the Management, they raised an Industrial Dispute on the strength of the settlement under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act dated 8.11.1973 and 15.07.1977 and the same was referred by the Government of Tamil Nadu to the Industrial Tribunal, Madras, in G.O.Ms.No.1976 Labour and Employment dated 18.9.1982 wherein the following Industrial Dispute had to be resolved: "Whether the demand that the Sri Lanka repatriates workers should be paid occupational wages, is justified, if so, from what date". 1. (v) In the settlement dated 8.11.1973 the Management had agreed that those employees, who are employed in the Mills are not in receipt of occupational wages, will be paid occupational wages with effect from 01.07.1973. However, the Management had not paid occupational wages to Sri Lanka Repatriate Workers as per this settlement. THEy have been given the same kind of work like that of other workers, but the Management is paying wages contrary to the above stated settlement. THEy have be absorbed as permanent workers in accordance with the terms of employment agreed with the Director of Rehabilitation. THE Management is bound to treat them as permanent workers. THEy are doing equal work as turned out by other workers but they are not paid equal wages. THEy are paid lesser wages which are discriminatory, unlawful and violative of settlement. THEy are entitled to get full occupational wages.

(2.) IN the Counter statement filed by the Management, it is stated that provision was made for grant of loans, subsistence allowance, rations etc., to the Sri Lankan Repatriates. The wages and other service conditions of the Sri Lankan Repatriates are governed by the directions given to the Directors of Rehabilitation of the Central and State Governments from time to time. They are treated as a separate category of workmen and dealt with differently from other workmen. IN a period of five years, their wages have been progressively increased with the advancement of their service and are brought on par with the permanent workmen. By reason of their position as Repatriates they are in a position to get employment overlooking the claims of more qualified unemployed youth and they are not subjected to any qualification, age or experience. Even though they were employed in the first five years temporarily, they are being absorbed as permanent workers after five years. Naturally they cannot have a claim for occupational wages. The difference between wages actually drawn by them and the occupational wages is adequately compensated by the grant of rations, subsistence allowance and other financial assistance given by the State Government and Central Government. The demand referred for adjudication has been conceded from 1.12.1982 and there is no scope to grant relief for the earlier period.

(3.) IT transpires from records that at the time of entering into the settlement, Srilankan Repatriates were not in the employment of the Management. Hence there was no specific mentioning in the said settlement about their service conditions in the establishment. While discussing this point, the Industrial Tribunal has followed the decision of the Apex Court and reached conclusion that the agreed demands will also govern the successors, assigns or heirs of the employer. In 1975 I LLJ P 163 [Jhagrakhan Collieries (P) Ltd. vs. G.C. Agarwal] the Supreme Court has held as follows: