CHEMPLAST SANMAR LIMITED Vs. METTUR CHEMICALS PODHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above writ appeals have been filed against the common order of a learned single Judge of this Court dated July 11, 1997, in W.P. Nos. 6452 and 6453 of 1997, whereunder the learned Judge was pleased to allow the writ petitions filed by the employees' unions relating to two establishments, seeking for the relief of mandamus directing the appellant/management not to discontinue the existing benefits, viz., regular fixed monthly payment covered under the settlement dated November 27, 1992, without giving prior notice under Sec. 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), at the same time leaving liberty with the management and the workmen unions to negotiate and arrive at a reasonable settlement, in accordance with law. The appeals could be dealt with together: inasmuch as, not only the learned Single Judge also dealt with the same similarly, but even before us, submissions have been made by counsel appearing on either side, in common.

(2.) The sum and substance of the claim of the respondent-unions is that since the appellant-companies have been making enormous profits and the workmen are outside the purview of the Payment of Bonus Act. Consequently, the management was said to have offered a fixed monthly payment to the workmen, who were outside the purview of the Payment of Bonus Act, and in those circumstances, a settlement dated November 27, 1992, appears to have been arrived at under Section 18(1) of the Act between the appellant- management and the various unions, providing for fixed monthly payment of 56.5 percent of wages of April, 1992, every month, for the period from April 1, 1991, to March 31, 1997, along with monthly wages. It is also stated that Rs. 500 from the aforesaid amount has been agreed to be treated as fixed dearness allowance and provident fund, gratuity, over-time and medical reimbursement benefits are to be given on the said amount of Rs. 500, treating it as fixed dearness allowance. The said settlement was said to have been in operation from April 1 1991, to March 31, 1997, and on the eve of the expiry of the term, the union gave a notice dated December 31, 1996, terminating the settlement dated November 27, 1992, under Section 19 (2) of the Act, and thereupon, the management sent a letter dated March 5, 1997, with reference to the said letter terminating the settlement, stating that the continuation of the settlement would have been in the best interests of both the workmen and the management and since the unions terminated the settlement, the monthly payment hitherto made under the settlement, will cease to be paid from April 1, 1997. The unions, at that stage, raised a charter of demands dated March 15, 1997, demanding revision in the monthly payment from 56.5 percent to 120 percent and talks were said to have been held in the connection on many days with no positive response or willingness on the part of the management to increase the quantum of monthly payment, which the workmen were said to be receiving from April 1, 1991 onwards. The management appears to have taken the stand from the beginning, as also before us, that since the settlement was arminated and ceased to exist from April 1, 1997, the liability to pay the monthly fixed playment as above, also ceased. In view of the above, the workers claimed that the action of the management discontinuing the existing benefits, particularly the monthly fixed payment, amounts to alteration of conditions of service to the disadvantage of the workmen, resulting in reduction in the wages of the workmen and this is opposed to Section 9-A of the Act, particularly when the same is sought to be effected without giving notice to the workmen likely to be affected, in the prescribed banner. It is also claimed that though there is prohibition on the workmen as well as the management to seek a fresh settlement during the currency of the settlement in force, and the arties have to terminate the settlement on its expiry, under Section 16(5) of the Act, before teeking fresh settlement, the management is found to pay the benefits and continue to pay such sum due under the settlement, even after is period of expiry/termination, until a new settlement or award replacing the earlier one tomes into force. Hence, the workmen/unions prayed for necessary direction for the continuance of the existing benefits covered under the settlement dated November 27, 1992.

(3.) The appellant-management filed separate but almost identical counters contending that the writ petitions are not maintaining against the appellant-management, which is said to be a private employer, not falling within the meaning of the definitions of "State and, therefore, not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Without prejudice to the said objection regarding the maintainability, it was also contended that there has been no change in the service conditions of the members of the respondent-unions and, consequently, there is no question of applying or claiming any relief based on Section 9-A of the Act, besides further contending that the respondent-unions, if aggrieved, have to approach the Labour Court by availing of only remedies lenvisaged under the Industrial Disputes Act. On the merits of the claims, the management contended that since there were disruptions of work arising out of the bonus dispute and inasmuch as the management proposed that though they would be obliged to strictly implement the provisions of the Payment of Bonus Act, the management would at the same time grant bonus so that the workmen who were enjoying the benefits of the Act, till such time as their salary exceeded the limit prescribed by the Bonus Act, would not be affected monetarily, as there was an amicable arrangement, resulting thereby a long-term settlement to be effective from April 1, 1991, onwards, and the same was accepted between the parties. It was also stated, that the monthly allowance in lieu of the amount determined as bonus, would be integral part of this arrangement and it was further decided that the management would give certain amount exclusively as a long-term arrangement, from the commencement of the settlement, for the period from April 1, 1991, to March31, 1997. The management submitted that after the period of five years, it was to be deemed that the workers would not be entitled to any amount under the settlement, if terminated. According to the management, the amounts so agreed to be paid under the settlement in question were paid only towards bonus and not as wages and it is incorrect for the workmen to contend mat they were enjoying the benefits of the settlement as wages and not as bonus.