A J VERGHESE Vs. BHARAT ALUMINIUM CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution for a writ in the nature of mandamus for directing the respondent No. 1 to fix uniform working hours for all the employees of the ministerial staff whether working inside the plant or outside in the administrative building.

(2.) BHARAT Aluminium Company Limited (hereinafter called BALCO) is a government company under section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956. All the shares of the company are fully owned by the Government of India and the Board of Directors are also appointed by it including the Chairman-cum-Managing Director. BALCO has its head office at New Delhi and its factory at Korba where it manufactures aluminium ingots, sheets, coils and other products. It also owns two Bauxite mines one at Phutka pahad and the other at Amarkantak. The company employs about 5000 employees including about 500 in the ministerial staff. Since its inception before the administrative building and other buildings were constructed, the ministerial staff working in the plant as well as in certain technical and maintenance departments inside or outside the plant were having working hours of 48 hours per week, while those working in the administrative side were having working hours of 41 1/2 hours per week. The BALCO has its own standing orders under the provisions of Industrial Employment (Standing orders) Act, 1946. Under Paragraph 21 of the Standing Orders, the hours of working of workmen can be fixed by the management from time to time subject to the provisions of law applicable to the workers. The respondent No. 2 Bharat Aluminium Mazdoor sangh is the representative union of BALCO and it is affiliated with Indian National trade Union Congress. In order to increase the efficiency, a settlement was arrived at and registered between BALCO and the representative union on 18-10-1976 under section 33 of the M. P. Industrial Relations Act providing uniform working hours of 48 hours per week for all employees whether working inside the plant or outside in the administrative building. Consequently, all the employees started working 48 hours a week whether posted inside the plant or outside in the administrative building. The agreement was valid for a period of 4 years. When the agreement was coming to an end, the representative union presented a charter of demand for reducing the working hours of the staff working in the administrative building from 48 hours to 36 hours a week. After prolonged negotiations at all stages it was found that the efficiency did not increase by increasing the working hours of the employees in the administrative building from 411/2 hours to 48 hours and, therefore, a settlement was arrived at and registered on 19-11-1981 restoring the original working hours in the administrative building i. e. from 48 hours to 41v2 hours a week. But thereafter these 18 petitioners who are members of the clerical staff and posted inside the plant made a representation that fixing different working hours for the clerical staff who are similarly situated is discriminatory and uniform working hours of 41 1/2 hours should be fixed for all members of the clerical staff whether working inside the plant or outside in the administrative building. Since nothing was done, a registered notice was sent to the management and then present petition has been filed on 25-3-1982.

(3.) THE petitioners case is that the members of the ministerial staff serving in different departments of BALCO belong to one cadre, their services are inter-transferable, scale of pay similar and so also other conditions of service. These petitioners are not members of the Bharat Aluminium Mazdoor Sangh and they were not parties to the agreement dated 19-11-1981. They are aggrieved by the agreement which is highly discriminatory by fixing 41 1/2 hours a week for those working in the administrative building while 48 hours a week for those working in the plant, in technical and maintenance establishments, stores, Medical and Township Departments and there is no rational basis for this discriminatory treatment. After making representation and serving a notice, the present petition has been filed challenging the settlement dated 19-11-1981 as highly discriminatory and ultra vires of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Since the petitioners cannot raise a dispute before the Labour Court because of the registered settlement between the management and the representative union, they have no option but to file this petition. BALCO in its return submitted that the petitioner No. 1 was an active member of the Bharat Aluminium Mazdoor Sangh and he participated in the negotiations which resulted in the settlement of 19-11-1981 thouh he is not a signatory to the settlement. Since the settlement was arrived at between the management and the representative union, it is binding on all the employees under $. 97 of the M. P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960. and as such the petition is not tenable. Since the settlement of 19-11-1981 is going to expire on 31-3-1985, the proper course for the petitioners would be to present a charter of demand for having uniform working hours for all the members of the clerical staff. Besides, these petitioners are not at all adversely affected by the settlement of 19-11-1981. They are posted inside the plant and working 48 hours per week prior and after to 18-10-1976. Though members of the clerical staff constitute a common cadre, those working inside the plant and in the Technical and Maintenance Departments constitute a different class by themselves as their working is co-related with the working of the plant and they cannot have different working hours than the other employees working in the plant. If they are given different working hours, then the working and production in the plant will be jeopardised. In the absence of clerical staff for the full 8 hours in the plant and also in the Technical and Maintenance sections, the work by the other employees would come to a stop without the store and Technical Department working for full 8 hours and the other employees in the plant cannot work for 8 hours a day. The representative union in its return has supported the case of the management and further submitted that the petitioners 1 to 4, 11, 13 and 14 were members of the union and otherwise also the petitioners are bound by the settlement arrived at by the management with the representative union. As the petitioner No. 1 has fallen out with the office bearers of the representative union, he has now formed a rival union and wants to undo the settlement arrived at. By way of rejoinder, the petitioners have further pointed out that some of the members of the clerical staff though working in the same building have different working hours and this has been replied by the respondent No. 1 by saying that this anomalous position arose due to oversight. Some employees who were working in the site while being posted inside the plant continued to work for 41 1/2 hours a week without being noticed by the management but after 18-10-1976 all the employees in the plant are working 48 hours a week.