Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 5555 of 1999
PETITIONER:
M/S NATIONAL TEXTILE CORPORATION (APKKM) LIMITED.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
SREE YELLAMMA COTTON, WOOLLEN AND SILK MILLS STAFF ASSOCIATION
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 18/01/2001
BENCH:
S.V.Patil, S.R.Babu
JUDGMENT:
L.....I.........T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J
RAJENDRA BABU, J. :
The employees of the appellant-Corporation fall into
three categories and they are (i) technical persons and
Supervisors, (ii) ministerial staff and (iii) workmen. As
regards the second category of employees a settlement was
entered into on 3.9.1979 which was to be effective for a
period of five years from 1.10.78. The said settlement also
provided that the ministerial staff shall not make any claim
or demand for the revision of any of the terms and
conditions covered by the settlement or make any demand
involving additional financial burden on the mills subject
however to clause 5 of the settlement and a provision was
also made for dearness allowance which would be in force for
a period of three years from 1.10.1978. With regard to
third category of employees the appellants entered into two
settlements as a result of which workers agreed to work on
seven-day-a-week- working system from 16.11.1980 thereby the
weekly holiday stood changed and in addition certain
increases in emoluments have been provided to them. The
second category of employees-ministerial staff raised an
industrial dispute which was referred by the Government of
Karnataka on the following two questions :
(1) whether the appellant is justified in changing the
weekly holidays of the staff members with effect from
16.11.1980? (2) Are the employees in the second category
justified in demanding 4 per cent increase in emoluments and
payment of Rs. 52.20 per staff member per month at par with
the mill workers?
The Labour Court answered both the questions in the
affirmative and made an award that the increased emoluments
to the second category of workmen will become payable from
1.10.1983. The correctness of the said award was challenged
in a writ petition filed by the appellant. The learned
Single Judge of the High Court, while deciding the writ
petition held that the settlement dated 3.9.1979 which
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3
became effective from 1.10.78 having been acted upon and
during the subsistence of the settlement, the reference
could not have been made and, moreover, the parity claimed
in the emoluments to be paid to the workmen and the
ministerial staff forming separate categories cannot be
drawn and, therefore, enhancing the remuneration from
1.10.1983 is untenable and allowed the writ petition by
setting aside the award made by the Labour Court and
rejecting the reference made by the Government. On an
appeal, the Division Bench of the High Court reversed the
decision of the learned Single Judge and restored the award
made by the Labour Court. Hence this appeal.
The view of the learned Single Judge is commended for
acceptance by the learned counsel for the appellants.
Undoubtedly, the legal position is that during the
subsistence of a settlement it is not open to any of the
parties to raise a dispute. A settlement once entered into
between the parties shall be operative until the same is
terminated as provided in Section 19 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 [hereinafter referred to as the Act].
The object of such a provision is to ensure that once a
settlement is entered into then industrial peace prevails
according cordialities between the parties during the period
agreed upon. The same position should continue by extension
of the settlement by operation of law. There is an option
given to either party to terminate the settlement and such a
course having not been adopted in the present case the
dispute could not have been raised by the parties. But in
an appropriate case Government may make a reference under
the Act on the ground that since the time settlement was
entered into there has been material change in the
circumstances. In the present case, the Labour Court
noticed such a situation arising as a result of the second
settlement entered into with the workmen that is the third
category of employees. In the original settlement between
the parties there has been no provision of working the mills
all seven days in a week nor was any provision made in
regard higher emolument applicable to either class of
workmen. The Labour Court noticed that a gardner who had
been categorised as a member of the staff coming under
category two could get less emoluments than his helper who
comes under category three and, therefore, in those special
circumstances in view of the change in the working
conditions the Labour Court gave relief to the employees
coming under second category but from a date on the expiry
of the agreed settlement entered into by the parties,
namely, 1.10.1983. Section 19 of the Act limits the
variation of settlement but if there has been any material
change in the circumstances available in the establishment
of an employer certainly such a situation can not be ignored
altogether to state that settlement alone should be adhered
to whatever be the situation. If such a settlement cannot
be worked out in a congenial atmosphere between the workmen
and the employer it will be difficult to maintain industrial
peace and these aspects are to be borne in mind by the
Labour Court. We do not think that such considerations
would be altogether irrelevant in giving the relief as
sought for by the respondents and to deny the same on the
short ground of reference not being maintainable.
Secondly, on the question whether there should be
parity in payment between the employees working in the
establishment in different categories, ultimately what
decides the matter is a sense of fairness in providing
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3
different scales of pay. If, as stated earlier, a gardner
was to get less emoluments by treating him under category
two, his helper were to receive higher emoluments in view of
the second settlement entered into with category three to
which Helper belongs, the whole system smacks of
arbitrariness and unfair treatment of different categories
of employees. What has to be seen ultimately is whether the
emoluments that are paid to the second category of employees
become unfair in view of increase in the emoluments given to
other classes of employees. By bearing in mind the
increased work load and the nature of employment the Labour
Court took the view that similar increase should be there in
the emoluments. We do not think, such reasoning is
unjustifiable. Therefore, in the special features of this
case the learned Single Judge of the High Court ought not to
have interfered with the order made by the Labour Court.
Therefore, the Division Bench was justified in setting aside
the order made by the learned Single Judge for the reasons
stated by us. We find good reasons to maintain the award
made by the Labour Court in reversal of the decision of the
learned Single Judge in the writ petition.
For the aforesaid reasons, this appeal stands
dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the case there
shall be no order as to costs.