SHEO NARAYAN CHOUDHARI AND ANOTHER Vs. A.W. KANWADIKAR, MEMBER JUDGE, THE INDUSTRIAL COURT, M.P. & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE two Petitioners, who are employed as masons in the Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, filed separate applications under Section 61 of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), in the Labour Court, Raipur, for restoration of the reduction effected by the management, namely, the Respondent No. 3, the General Manager of the Hindustan Steel Ltd., in their wages as a measure of punishment after finding that some charges had been established against them.

(2.) THE Labour Court found that the reduction in the wages of the applicants was an "illegal change" within the meaning of Section 34 of the Act and accordingly made an order directing the Respondent No. 3 to withdraw the "change" and restore the reduction in the wages of the Petitioners. Thereupon, the Respondent No. 3 preferred revision petitions before the Industrial Court, Indore, against the common decision of the Labour Court granting the Petitioners' applications under Section 61 of the Act. The Industrial Court took the view that the matter of the reduction of the Petitioners wages was an industrial matter as specified in Schedule II to the Act and consequently the Petitioners who desired to have the cut in their wages restored could move the Labour Court for that purpose only under Section 31(3) of the Act after approaching the employer with a request for the change and if no agreement was reached in respect of the change within the prescribed period; and that as admittedly the Petitioners did not approach the employer as required, by the proviso to Sub -section (3) of Section 31,the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain their applications. The Industrial Court also held that the reduction in the Petitioners' wages did not amount to an illegal change as defined by Section 34 of the Act. On this view, the Industrial Court set aside the decision of the Labour Court and dismissed the Petitioner's applications.

(3.) IT will be seen from the aforesaid provisions that any change in respect of an industrial matter specified in Schedule I can be effected by an employer only in accordance with Sub -section (1) of Section 31; if a representative of employees desires a change in respect of an industrial matter not covered either by standing orders or by Schedule II, then he has to proceed in accordance with Sub -section (2) of Section 1; and if a representative of employees or an employee desires a change in respect of an industrial matter specified in Schedule II or any other matter arising out of such change, then he can move the Labour Court for redress only after an application as contemplated by the proviso to Sub -section (3) of Section 31 read with Rule 34 of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Rules, 1961, is made and no agreement is arrived at between the employer and the employee in respect of the mortgage.