JIYAJEERAO COTTON MILLS LTD. Vs. MAZDOOR CONGRESS, GWALIOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HANUMAN Bhandar is an eating house which sells and serves edibles. It is situated within the campus of Jiyajeerao Cotton Mills at Birlanagar, Gwalior, and the workmen of the Bhandar say that they sell food to themselves and the co -workmen who are engaged in the textile industry which goes by the name of Jiyajeerao Cotton Mills, besides the Bhandar is a 'canteen' for the workers of the Mills. This is truly the crux of the controversy between the parties. For, this position is disputed by three petitioners who, respectively, are - (1) Jiyajeerao Cotton Mills Ltd., (2) factory Manager of the Jiyajeerao Cotton Mills Ltd., Textile Factory, Birlangar, Gwalior and (3) Manager, Hanuman Bhandar, J.C. Mills Ltd., Birlanagar, Gwalior. However, in the instant petition, the scope of the controversy does not extend to Bhandar's employees enforcing any right of workmen of J.C. Mills but it is limited to narrow confines, which I proceed immediately to indicate.

(2.) BEFORE I refer to the diary of events leading to the instant petition. I propose to say at once that Shri S.K. Dubey, petitioner's counsel, rightly, indeed, realising the character of the lis, which concerns chiefly the interpretation of a couple of local statutes dealing with industrial relations, laid great stress on the word "a" which appear in Section 13 of M. P. Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1961 (for short 1961 Act'). Because the said provision also inheres the core of the controversy in the instant lis, I propose to extract the same in extenso - -

(3.) PETITIONERS counsel Shri Dubey, has assailed the impugned order on two counts. Firstly, the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the application as it did not raise any "dispute" contemplated under Section 13 of 1961 Act. Secondly, the provisions of 1961 Act were not applicable to the workmen or employees of Hanuman Bhandar, which was registered on 21 -1 -1977 under the provisions of M.P. Shops and Establishments Act, 1958 (for short 1958 Act'). He invited my attention to the Annexure P -6 (Written Statement) filed in the Labour Court as also to certain other Annexures, namely P -2, P -8, P -10 and P -13 to P -16 to lay the foundation of facts for the legal contentions. The gist of his contention on facts, based on the Annexures referred, is projected in Annexure P -12 itself which is an agreement executed on 1 -4 -1979 between the Manager of Hanuman Bhandar canteen and Secretary of Shops and Establishments workers' Union. It is his submission that the workmen of Hanuman Bhandar cannot approbate and reprobate, in other words, they were bound by the agreement and their service conditions are to be governed by the agreement and the provisions of the 1958 Act, and not by 1961 Act and be placed implicit reliance on appendices I and II of the agreement to support his contention. However, in my opinion, this contention bas to be rejected forthwith as for violation of the terms and conditions of the agreement by the workmen of the Bhandar there can and must necessarily, be a separate dispute and that question has nothing to do with the jurisdictional competence of the Labour Court to determine the "dispute" referred to it under Section 13 of 1961 Act. Indeed, Shri Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the respondents, rightly submitted that there can be no estoppel against the statute and by their unilateral act of securing registration of Hanuman Bhandar under 1958 Act the petitioners could not thereby render inapplicable the provisions of 1961 Act to the workmen of Hanuman Bhandar. Accordingly, Shri Upadhyaya, who relied on Associated Rubber Industries (1985) 4 SCC 141 case, to make the submission, submitted that this Court must tear the veil and demolish the device adopted by the petitioner, namely, the registration, which was devised for the purpose of avoiding an onerous future liability, eventually created by the 1961 Act, which was a welfare legislation.