HIND LAMPS LTD Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, Hind Lamps Limited, is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, situated at Shikohabad, through its General Manager, has approached this Court for quashing of the award of the Industrial Tribunal IVth Agra dated 7.5.1985 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) to the extent house rent allowance has been allowed to the worker of the aforementioned establishment, who have not been provided the house accommodation with effect from 31.3.1980.

(2.) Brief background of the case, as mentioned in the writ petition, is that the petitioner, which is a public limited company having its registered office at Shikohabad is carrying on the business of manufacturing electric lamps, tubes and miniature lamps in its factory at Shikohabad and there are 1700 employees working in the aforementioned establishment. In the year 1976 there existed only one Union of the workmen, which was known by the name of Indicate Shramik Sangh, which was registered trade Union and which was recognised by the petitioner. Primarily 90% workmen were its members. In the year 1977 another worker's Union, namely Hind Lamps Shramik Sangh, respondent No. 3 came into existence. This particular union gathered support initially and was recognised by the petitioner as the majority union. Subsequently however, respondent No. 3 led strike in the year 1978, which came to an end after two months on account of which the aforementioned union lost a lot of its support and Indicate Shramik Sangh again become majority union of the petitioner Unit. As Indicate Shramik Sangh, had an overwhelming majority of workmen as its member the petitioner entered into long-term settlements with aforementioned Union from time to time. Earlier on 9.8.1973, settlement was arrived at between the petitioner and the Union, which continued to remain in force till 30.4.1976, when it was terminated by the workmen as well as by the employers. In this agreement a scheme for good attendance leave was provided which remained in force for a period of three years after termination of the aforesaid agreement, Indicate Shramik Sangh had submitted a charter of demand dated 12.10.1976, which included the demands for Holiday Allowance, House and Cycle Allowance. These demands were settled by means of settlement deed dated 18.4.1977, which was duly registered by the Labour Authorities. According to this settlement all the demands stood fully settled which were raised in the demands in the year 1976. During this period the respondent No. 3 came into existence and at one stage was recognised by the petitioner, the respondent No. 3 placed a charter of demands through letter dated 8.9.1977 and settlement again arrived at on 13.1.1978 and all the demands, including good attendance leave were finally settled. The respondent No. 3 again submitted statement of demand vide letter dated 21.10.1978, in which apart from other demands, the workers claimed House /Rent Allowance at the rate of 15%. Pursuant to aforementioned demands made by the workers, the workers went on strike which continued upto 15.12.1978. At that point of time, a large number of workers left the fold of the respondent No. 3 and Joined their duties on 15.12.1978, at the call of Indicate Shramik Sangh. On 3.1.1979, the then Chief Minister of the Government of U.P. called a meeting of the Management and the workmen in which representatives of both the unions and Labour Authorities participated and thereafter on 11.1.1979, settlement was arrived at and this was based on the agreement reached before the Chief Minister. It was made clear in the meeting with the Chief Minister, that the matter of wages, dearness allowance etc. would be negotiated with Indicate Shramik Sangh, under the mediation of the Labour Commissioner separately. By way of abundant caution, the management further issued notice to all workmen stating therein that it was open to workmen to collect the benefits under the settlement dated 11.1.1979 and it was mentioned therein such workmen who accepted the benefits thereunder would also be bound by it and same would amount to acceptance of the settlement dated 11.1.1979, which was duly registered by the Labour Authorities. It was agreed that the settlement would be signed by the Indicate Shramik Sangh the settlement provided for good attendance leave and other benefits. It was also agreed in the aforementioned agreement that the matter of wages, dearness allowance, bonus etc. would be negotiated with Indicate Shramik Sangh under the mediation of the Labour Commissioner and this was duly settled by settlement dated 20.7.1979, which was also registered under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. The settlement dated 20.7.1979 was applicable from 1.1.1979 for the period of four years. The aforementioned settlement was by way of package deal, which was finally put to rest, all the demands made by the workmen vide notice and demand dated 21.10.1978. After the settlement there remained no dispute between the petitioner and the workmen in terms of Clause 13 of the aforementioned settlement. This settlement to bind all the workmen in the establishment with settlement entered into between the petitioner and the Indicate Shramik Sangh on 20.7.1979. The petitioner had issued notice stating that it was open to all workmen to accept payment under the settlement and acceptance of payment would imply the acceptance of the settlement. Pursuant to the aforementioned agreement workmen received all the benefits arrived at in the settlement dated 20.7.1979 and thus demands which were raised in the settlement of demand dated 21.10.1978 especially the demand of house rent allowance and other demands were fully complied with and only four workmen who were in fact office-bearers of the respondent No. 3 did not accept payment under the settlement dated 20.7.1979. On 22.11.1982 the Indicate Shramik Sangh which enjoyed support of majority of 90% of workmen in the petitioner's establishment raised demand in which apart from other demands, the demand of House Rent Allowance, good attendance leave, head allowance and holiday allowance was raised. On the basis of the statement of demands which was made, settlement was arrived at wherein an ad hoc increase of Rs. 40 and other benefits was to be given to all the workers in their wages and there package deal considering all the demands raised in their demand. Apart from this ad-hoc increase of Rs. 40/-, other allowance such as production bonus, good attendance leave were given under this agreement which was duly registered on 2.7.1983. In paragraph-16 of the aforesaid settlement specific condition has been incorporated that the said agreement dated 14.6.1983 settled all the demands raised in the demand dated 22.11.1982. This agreement dated 14.6.1983 was applicable from 1.1.1983 for a period of three years i.e. upto 31.12.1985. Pursuant to the settlement dated 14.6.1983, the petitioner issued a notice dated 4.7.1983 to all the workers stating that the settlement dated 14.6.1983 had been registered and in accordance with the terms of the settlement, the workers could collect the arrears of their wages and other benefits but that it must be clearly understood that by accepting payment of arrears of wages, it would amount to acceptance of the terms and conditions of the agreement dated 14.6.1983. Even though the demand raised by respondent No. 3 vide its demand notice dated 21.10.1978 have been duly settled by the intervention of the Chief Minister of the State, but State Government had referred industrial dispute between the petitioner and its workmen by exercising its power under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Aforementioned reference has been made and the same was registered as Adjudication Case No. 40 of 1984. In pursuance of the aforesaid Reference Order, notice were issued to the parties for filing their statement. From the side of respondent No. 3 written statement had been filed on 15.5.1981 and from the side of the petitioner written statement had been filed on 16.9.1980. In the written statement filed by the petitioner precise plea has been taken to the effect that reference was illegal because the dispute referred for adjudication no longer existed as the said dispute has already been settled by the agreement dated 20.7.1979. From both side rejoinder statement had been filed and from the side of the petitioner, it has been stated in the rejoinder statement that the reference was not valid as the settlement had already been arrived at and settled which was for a period of 4 years i.e. upto 31.12.1982. Thereafter, there was no justification for awarding the House Rent Allowance. During the pendency of the aforesaid reference, four workmen, namely, the office-bearers of respondent No. 3, who had earlier refused to accept also took benefit under settlement dated 20.7.1979, they drew all the benefits thereunder retrospectively. Thus, each and every single workman had accepted the settlement dated 20.7.1979. Thereafter the petitioner moved an application before Industrial Tribunal incorporating the aforesaid pleading before it. The Union objected to the aforementioned application and against aforementioned objection additional rejoinder statement was filed. On behalf of the petitioner two witnesses, namely, Shri K.H. Masand, Deputy Manager (Personnel) and Sri S.K. Sinha Roy, Manager, Plant Engineering Department were examined and thereafter Labour Court has passed the award by means of which Holiday Allowance has been proved and further House Rent Allowance has been provided.

(3.) At this juncture present writ petition has been filed. On the presentation of the writ petition, this Court on 8.8.1985, stayed the operation of the award to the extent it directed payment in respect to grant of House Rent Allowance and realisation of the amount was also stayed.