EXECUTIVE ENGINEER Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT JEYPORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, the authorities of GRIDCO, seek to assail the common order passed on 16th May, 1994 (Annexure-1 to the Writ application) passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jeypore in I.D. Misc. Case Nos.50/1993, 54/1993, 55/1993, 56/1993 and 85/1993. All the aforesaid I.D. Misc. Cases under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 had been filed by some workmen of different electrical divisions of the erstwhile Orissa State Electricity Board (for short 'OSEB'), subsequently re-named as GRIDCO, claiming surrender leave benefit on the basis of the OSEB Employees' Leave Regulations, 1983 and a Memorandum of Settlement dated 6th July, 1991 arrived at between the management of OSEB and the Employees' Union, vide Annexure-3.

(2.) According to the workmen, in consonance with the aforesaid Regulations which came into effect from 1st June, 1983,an employee was entitled to surrender 30 days of earned leave if he had to his credit 120 days of earned leave in each block period of two years and in lieu of that would be entitled to payment of leave salary and allowances as were admissible. It was averred by them that the management of the OSEB and the Employees' Union singed a Settlement on 6th of July, 1991 with regard to revision of wages of the employees from 1st of April, 1990 and that as per item No.8 of the said Settlement it was settled that all the allowances as were then admissible to be paid to the employees as also the special pay incorporated in the said Settlement would continue. According to the workmen, on the basis of the said Settlement and the Board's Regulations, surrender leave benefit was extended to them till the end of the block period from April, 1991 to March, 1993. On 24th April, 1993, however, the Chairman of OSEB issued a Notice under Section 9-A of the I.D. Act read with Rule 36 of the Orissa I.D. Rules, 1959 to the all the Unions proposing that the OSEB would withdraw the surrender leave benefit on expiry of twenty-one days from the date of issue of the said Notice. It was alleged by the workmen that though they had 120 days of earned leave to their credit and had made applications for surrender leave benefit during the block period from 1.4.1993 to 31.3.1995 the said having not been granted to them, they were constrained to initiate the aforesaid proceedings under Section 33-C(2) of the I.D. Act.

(3.) The management of OSEB appeared and contested the case by filing its written statement inter alia taking the stand that the Department of Public Enterprises of the Government controls and guides the public sector undertakings in the State in the matters of finance, service conditions, etc. and that due to continuous losses by OSEB, which came to be a burden on the public exchequer, and in view of similar financial burdens transmitted by other public sector undertakings to the government, the Government in its Finance Department Memorandum No.788 dated 22nd February, 1993 withdrew the surrender leave benefit of the Government servants with effect 1st April, 1993. The Government also issued Officer Memorandum to the State Public Sector Undertakings to withdraw such benefit of their employees. In consonance with that direction of Government, the OSEB decided to withdraw the LTC and surrender leave benefits of its employees and accordingly issued Notice under Section 9-A of the I.D. Act to all the workmen on 24th of April, 1993. The Notice was sent to all the registered trade unions of the OSEB. On receipt o such Notice, the OSEB Shramik Mahasangha on 30th of April, 1993 gave a notice of strike to commence from 15th May, 1993 purportedly under Section 22 of the I.D. Act thereby raising a dispute with regard to the aforesaid Notice issued under Section 9-A of the Act. Conciliation having failed, the Conciliation Officer submitted a failure report to Government as required under Section 12(4) of the I.D. Act and the matter was pending before the Government for taking action in accordance with law. On the basis of such submission, the management of OSEB took the stand that the petitions filed under Section 33-C(2) of the I.D. Act by the respective workmen were not maintainable and the same were liable to be dismissed in limine as a dispute with regard to pay-ability of the surrender leave benefit was pending.