TATA CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND ASSOCIATES STAFF UNION Vs. TATA CONSULTING ENGINEERS A DIVISION OF TATA SONS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order of the 12th Labour Court, Bombay, dated 26-2-1993 is under challenge in this petition.

(2.) THE petitioner-Union filed an application under section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 claiming ever-time wages which has been rejected by the Labour Court. The facts emerging in this dispute are stated by the Industrial Court in para 7 of its judgment as under:-7.

(3.) MR. Deshmukh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that even though a union is not accepting a settlement entered into between the employer and another union and though deriving some benefits under that settlement, it is entitled to challenge that settlement. He further submits that the change of working hours in a day without changing total hour of work is a change in the conditions of service which cannot be done without issuing the notice under section 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act and, therefore, the non-issuance of such a notice under section 9-A is illegal. Further he submits that the settlement arrived at changing the service conditions without issuing the notice under section 9-A will not be a settlement at all in the eye of law. Therefore, the settlement is not binding on the petitioner-union. Another contention raised by the learned Counsel is that as per the service conditions, over-time allowance is admissible and if an employee is made to work over and above the prescribed number of hours in a day by implementing the settlement as aforesaid, it contravenes the right of the members of the petitioner-union. He further submits that a supervening factor has been introduced by a settlement over the existing rights of claim for the over-time allowance. He submits that in these circumstances, an application under section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act is maintainable to enforce the right.