NATIONAL TEXTILE CORPORATION Vs. KAMALA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE proceedings arise out of an order passed by the Industrial Court holding that the petitioner has committed an unfair labour practice under Items 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. The 1st to 7th respondents to these proceedings were engaged by certain Textile Mills prior to nationalisation by and under the provisions of the Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1974 ("the Nationalisation Act. ") The 1st and 3rd respondents were engaged in by the Mumbai Textile Mills in September 1980 and 21st August, 1976, respectively. The 2nd respondent was engaged on 2nd April, 1978 by Bharat Textile Mills. The 4th to 7th respondents were engaged by Jupiter Textile Mills on 9th May, 1973, 1st August, 1972, 8th June, 1973, and 10th April, 1978, respectively. Therefore, it is common ground that these were pre-nationalisation employees. The undertakings of the aforesaid Mills came to be acquired by virtue of the provisions of section 3 (1) of the Nationalisation Act, and vested in the National Textile Corporation, the petitioners. It is common ground between the learned Counsel that the erstwhile Mills in which the present respondents were employed have been listed out in the First Schedule in the Nationalisation Act. Items 2 and 3 of the First Schedule relate to the Ahmedabad Jupiter Spinning, Weaving and Manufacturing Mills, Item 33 to Edward Textile Mills, and Item 88, the Seksaria Cotton Mills. There is no dispute about the fact that Bharat Textile Mills is the same as Edward Textile Mills referred to in Item 33 of the First Schedule and Mumbai Textile Mills the same as Saksaria Cotton Mills referred to in Item 88. There is no dispute that under the provisions of the Nationalisation Act the services of respondent Nos. 1 to 7 came to be transferred to the National Textile Corporation under section 14 (1) of the Act. Sub-section (1) of section 14 provides that every person who was a workman within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and was employed in a Nationalised Sick Textile Undertaking ("n. T. C. ") would on and from the appointed date become an employee of the National Textile Corporation. The terms and conditions governing the service of such employees would be such as would have been applicable if the rights in relation to the Sick Textile Undertaking had not been transferred to and vested in the N. T. C. These terms and conditions would continue until the employment with the N. T. C. was duly terminated or until the remuneration, terms and conditions of employment were duly altered by the N. T. C.

(2.) PRIOR to the appointed date which was stipulated under the Nationalisation Act of 1974 industrial settlements had been entered into between the recognized union Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh, and the Mill Owners Association which represented the management of the Textile Mills in Mumbai. The workmen employed in the Mills were governed by these industrial settlements. After nationalisation, the workmen engaged by the erstwhile privately owned textile Mills became the employees of the N. T. C. The question as to what should be the pattern of wage fixation for employees of public sector corporations formed the subject matter of several writ petitions which were filed before the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution. These petitions were heard and disposed of by a Bench of three learned Judges of the Supreme Court on 3rd May, 1990. The judgment of the Supreme Court in (Jute Corporation of India Officers Association v. Jute Corporation of India Ltd.), W. P. No. 13044 of 1984 and other companion matters is reported in 1990 (3) S. C. C. 436. In the writ petitions which came to be disposed of by the judgment of the Supreme Court the relief which had been claimed was the implementation of the recommendation of a High Power Pay Committee in respect of the emoluments to be paid to the employees belonging to Class-I and Class-II in various Public Sector Enterprises. The High Powered Committee which was appointed to go into the question of wage fixation submitted its recommendations in a Final Report, dated 2nd November, 1988. The Central Government not having implemented the report of the Committee, several writ petitions were filed before the Supreme Court seeking the implementation of its recommendations. The judgment of the Supreme Court contains several operative directions, the following amongst those being material for the purposes of the present controversy :

(3.) AFTER the judgment of the Supreme Court was pronounced, the Government of India in the Ministry of Implementation (Department of Public Enterprises) issued an office Memorandum on 12th June, 1990 containing instructions in regard to the action which was required to be pursued by public sector enterprises which had been following the D. A. pattern of the 3rd/4th Central Pay Commissions. Paragraph 3 of the Memorandum issued by the Central Government classifies the employees of these undertakings into eight different categories. The Memorandum specifies as to what would be the governing principles for the determination of the terms of service with reference to each of the aforesaid categories. The dispute between the public sector enterprises and various classes of employees was initially in regard to the implementation of the Industrial Dearness Allowance. The Memorandum which was issued by the Central Government in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court provided for the applicability, or otherwise, of the Industrial D. A. pattern to various classes of employees. It would be convenient at the present stage to extract paragraph 3, which is the relevant part of the Memorandum :