VOLTAS LIMITED Vs. VOLTAS EMPLOYEES UNION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent Union expects from the petitioner company and demands that the Canteen Costs/prices of the following items should not be increased from the prevailing rates as stated below :the price list produced by the petitioner Company demonstrates that no food item is sold at a price more than rupee one. The respondent Union has very strongly opposed the notice of the petitioner company to increase the prices of food items sold in the Canteen on the ground that these prices were fixed under the bi-lateral settlement from 1978 onwards and that the petitioner Company cannot increase the price of any eatable item sold in the Canteen without the consent of the Union as provided under the settlement. It is the case of the Union that the subsidy which the petitioner Company has been giving in the Canteen must continue as the essential service condition of the workman. It was very vehemently submitted by Shri Gonsalvis, for the Union, that this Court should not merely look at the low prices of the food items but should also consider the other "sacrifice" made by the Union in their other demands. Shri Gonsalvis has admitted that the Consumer Price Index (CPI) and the Dearness Allowance linked with it has increased from 355 points in the year 1973 to 10501 points in June, 1999 i. e. more than 20 times. Inspite of this admitted steep rise in the figure of the CPI the Union has strongly opposed to any increase in the prices of the food items sold in Canteen though the amount of dearness allowance added in the pay packets of the workmen is increased with the CPI. It sounds very strange that on one hand the workman must get highest DA on the ground of rise in the CPI and while on the other hand they oppose the increase in the prices of the food items even by a single paisa. The Union has withheld its consent for any such rise in the prices of the food items.

(2.) THE Price Chart produced by the petitioner Company gives details about the prices of the food items sold in Mumbai Canteen and Thane Plant Canteen of the petitioner company. The Chart also shows that the assessed prices by the Auditor and prices desired to be fixed by the petitioners in the place of the prevailing prices. By its notice dated 30-4-1999 the petitioner expressed its demand to increase the food prices in view of the tremendous rise in the prices and also huge losses suffer by the petitioner in the business. After explaining all the factors the petitioner demanded consent from the Union for increase in the food prices in both the Canteens. It also pointed out that under the Factories Act as well as the settlement dated 13-8-1957 the Canteen was required to be run on the basis of no profits no loss. The petitioners took pains to point out to the Union that in view of the current prices in the canteen they are suffering huge loses. By its reply dated 4-5-1999 the respondent Union refused to give consent to any increase in the food prices on the ground that the Canteen Subsidise was the part of the service condition of the workmen. In the course of mutual correspondence it appears that the petitioners tried to participate and convince the Union how on the basis of cost worked out by the cost accountant rise in the food prices have become inevitable. It further appears that there were several round of discussion between parties but all in vain. Finally, failure to arrive at an agreement or understanding led the petitioners to effect its notice dated 30-4-1999 w. e. f. 31-5-1999 after expiry of 30 days. The Union promptly objected to such an act and filed a complaint of unfair labour practice on 3-6-1999 under section 28 read with Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971. The Union contended that the proposed increase in the food prices in the Canteen was in violation of the mandatory provisions of section 9a of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as no notice of change was given to the Union and secondly under the various agreements the Canteen Subsidy had become a service condition of the workmen and the prices of the food items in the Canteen should not be increased without the consent of the Union. Both these contentions were termed as unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Act. The petitioner filed their written statement contesting the complaint as misconceived and untenable and prayed for its dismissal. Both the parties adduced their evidence, oral and documentary, before the Industrial Court. By its order dated 20-9-1999 the Industrial Court upheld the contention of the respondent Union that the proposed increase in the prices of the food items in the canteen amounted to an unfair labour practice under Item 9 of the MRTU and PULP Act as it was in breach of section 9a of the I. D. Act and also there was failure to implement the settlement between the parties as the Union had not given the consent for such increase in the Canteen rates.

(3.) THE petitioners are aggrieved by the said judgment and order of the Industrial Court and have questioned its legality and validity under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in this petition. Both the learned Counsel have taken me through the entire proceedings and the law. At the outset Shri Singh, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in response towards demand No. 13 titled "subsidized Food" both the parties had finally agreed that the Canteen must be run on no profit no loss basis under the settlement dated 13-8-1957. He further pointed out that the principle of "no profit no loss rates" was continued as the basis of the determination of the food prices in the Canteen but it only remained on paper and no price increase was effected in any subsequent settlement. In the settlement dated 8-12-1987 the Union agreed to assist the company in running the canteen economically. This assurance was given by the Union in all the subsequent settlements and I need not deal with the relevant clause appearing in such settlements. It is the grievance of Shri Singh that the said assurance of the Union remained only on paper causing petitioner company tremendous losses in the matter of the Canteen. Shri Singh has made a very serious grievance against the Union that it had neither co-operated to run the Canteen efficiently and economically as agreed in various settlements while necessitating to maintain subsidy level of the year 1976-77 nor had it given consent to increase the food prices in the canteen. Shri Singh has further attacked the conduct of the Union that in every settlement they got fabulous increase in the total pay packets of all the workmen and they got higher and higher DA which was linked with the CPI. Shri Singh pointed out that the Union had insisted to get higher DA on the ground of rising prices of their own food items in their own kitchen while they totally adopted a negative and obstinate stand as far as rising cost of food items sold in the Canteen. This was totally double standard practice adopted by the Union. Shri Singh has pointed out that there was no unfair labour practice engaged by the petitioner as the food items in the Canteen were to be sold strictly on the basis of no profit no loss and it was not disputed by the Union that the Canteen was suffering huge loses. He also submitted that even under the Factories Act and Rules the principle of no profit no loss to run the factory Canteen is well established. Secondly Shri Singh has argued that the notice dated 30-4-1999 was a notice akin to a notice of change under section 9a of the Industrial Disputes Act was required. The learned Counsel submitted that the petitioner have waited for a period of 30 days though under section 9a the period was 21 days during which the desired change should not be effected. The petitioners have tried to effect the desired change with effect from 31-5-1999 and therefore, there is more than substantial compliance of section 9a of the Act. According to the learned Counsel the principle of no profit no loss was agreed under the settlement and on the basis of the said principle the petitioners proposed as the last resort and to increase the prices of the food items in the canteen to meet the recurring losses in the Canteen. According to him, the complaint was totally misconceived and ought to have dismissed by the Industrial Court.