GOA SHIP YARD LIMITED Vs. VISHWAS D.HONAVARKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above Writ Petitions are cross Petitions. Writ Petition No.199 of 2008 is filed by Goa Shipyard Limited through its Chairman and Managing Director, and Writ Petition No.664 of 2008 is filed by 19 workmen employed (the 19 workmen for short) with the Goa Shipyard Limited through their association. Both the Petitions take exception to the Award of the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court -I, Panaji Goa dated 26/10/2007. In so far as Writ Petition No.199 of 2008 is concerned, the challenge by the Goa Shipyard Limited (GSL for short) is to the Award to the extent it grants the benefits of the pay -scales recommended by the Justice Mohan Committee Report (JMCR for short) with effect from 01/01/2007, and in so far as Writ Petition No.664 of 2008 is concerned, the challenge by the 19 workmen is to the Award to the extent it denies the benefits of the pay -scale under the JMCR from the day they came into force i.e. 01/04/1998.

(2.) THE factual matrix involved in the above Petitions can be stated thus: The reference in question being Reference IT/2/2007 was preceded by the Writ Petition being filed by the said 19 workmen being Writ Petition No.481 of 2005 in which Writ Petition a direction was sought that the employer i.e. Goa Shipyard Limited (GSL) should be directed to extend the benefits of the pay -scales of the JMCR to the Petitioners therein i.e. 19 workmen. The said Petition was founded on the allegation of discrimination by the employer i.e. Goa Shipyard Limited vis -a -vis the said 19 workmen, as according to the Petitioners therein i.e. the 19 workmen, though there was a historical parity in pay -scales between the workmen who were granted the benefit of the said S1, S2 and S3 scales and the 19 workmen, the Respondent therein i.e. the GSL refused to extend the benefits of the S1, S2 and S3 to the 19 workmen. The said Petition came to be disposed of by this Court by order dated 06/06/2006 wherein this Court held that the dispute whether the members of the Petitioner -Association therein i.e. the 19 workmen who are store keepers are discriminated in the matter of extension of benefits of the JMCR and whether the acceptance of benefits of settlement dated 06/09/2002 bars the members of the Petitioner -Association from receiving benefits under the JMCR with effect from 01/04/1998 can be adjudicated and resolved by the Industrial Tribunal in a reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In pursuance of the order dated 6/6/2006 the Association of the 19 workmen raised an industrial dispute on 27/7/2006 which dispute on the conciliation proceedings having been failed came to be referred by the Government of Goa to the Industrial Tribunal by the order dated 06/10/2006 passed under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The terms of reference were inter -alia as follows : -

(3.) AFTER the reference of the dispute was made to the Industrial Tribunal, the Petitioners in Writ Petition No.664 of 2008 i.e. the 19 workmen filed their statement of claim. It was averred by them in the said statement of claim that the Respondent i.e. the GSL which was Party No. -II is the Government of India Undertaking and is a Public Limited Company established under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, that the 19 workmen are represented by Party No. -I which is a registered Association registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and was working as storekeepers Grade I in the establishment of the GSL i.e. Party No. -II. A reference was made to the Justice Mohan Pay Committee and the pay recommendations contained therein and especially the pay scales S1, S2 and S3. It was further averred in the said statement of claim that the technical staff working in the GSL had filed Writ Petition No.272 of 2002 before the High Court Bench at Goa for getting benefits of the SI, S2, and S3 pay scales recommended by the said Committee. It was further averred that the reference bearing No. IT/67/2003 at the instance of Administrative Staff of the GSL was pending in the Industrial Tribunal. In the said Writ Petition No.272 of 2002 as well as in the reference bearing No. IT/67/2003 it was the stand of the GSL that the said employees are not supervisors and therefore the revision in pay scales extended to nonunionized supervisory staff in terms of the JMCR cannot be extended to them. It is further averred that in spite of the said stand taken, the GSL extended benefits of S1, S2, S3 pay scales to the technical and administrative staff who were getting pay scale of 2725 -70 -3075 -80 -3895, pay scale of 2630 -55 -2905 -70 -3605 and pay scale of 2570 -50 -2820 -60 -3420 by orders dated 26/6/2003 and 2/4/2005 respectively. Hence the three old pay -scales were the revised pay -scales at Sr.Nos.7, 8 and 9 under the wage settlement dated 18/4/1994 which was covering all categories of employees. It is the case of the 19 workmen that thereafter the said employees made representations on 13/11/2003, 18/3/2005 and lastly on 15/5/2005 to the management asking it to review their pay scales and to extend to them the benefits of S1, S2 and S3 pay scales on par with the technical staff and administrative staff. The GSL by its letter dated 12/7/2005 turned down the said representations on the ground that they have accepted the settlement dated 6/9/2002 and that they are not entitled to get the benefit of S1, S2 and S3 pay scales during the validity of the settlement dated 6/9/2002. The 19 workmen have thereafter averred that since the recommendations of the JMCR have got statutory force, they would prevail upon the settlement dated 6/9/2002, since the same is in the realm of private contract. It was further averred that acceptance of benefits under the settlement dated 6/9/2002 does not bar them from receiving benefits available under the JMCR. It was their case that there was historical parity in the pay scales between the technical staff and administrative staff and the staff working in store section. The GSL by refusing to extend the benefits of S1, S2 and S3 pay scales has discriminated against them in the matter of extension of the benefits available under the JMCR. It is averred by them that it is in the said background that they had filed Writ Petition being No.481 of 2005 which came to be disposed of by the High Court of Bombay at Goa by the order dated 6/6/2006 by observing that the disputes can be adjudicated upon and resolved by the Industrial Tribunal in a reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. The 19 workmen in the said statement of claim have claimed that a direction be issued to the GSL to extend to them the S1, S2 and S3 pay scales which have been extended to the supervisory staff in the technical and administrative wings of the GSL along with other benefits including arrears of wages recommended by the JMCR on par with the technical and administrative staff.