Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Aurobinda Pharma Employees Union vs The Prl.Secy., Hyd., 5 Others on 13 November, 2024
APHC010699552015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3333]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY ,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
WRIT PETITION NO: 27893/2015
Between:
Aurobinda Pharma Employees Union ...PETITIONER
AND
The Prl Secy Hyd 5 Others and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. K.V. SATYA RAMACHANDRA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR LABOUR (AP)
2. G V S GANESH
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
seeking the following relief:-
"...to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature
of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the inaction of respondents 2 to 5,
particularly the respondents 4 and 5 in taking steps against the 6th
respondent for its consistent committing of Unfair Labour Practice as
defined under Section 2(ra), including initiation of prosecution as provided
under Sections 25(T) & (U) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and in not
taking steps to enforce G.O.Rt.No.21 Labour Employment Training &
Factories (Labour) Department, dated 19.01.2015 issued by the 1st
respondent under Section 10-B of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in all
respects as per the proceedings of 2nd respondent in Memo
No.H1/5565/2014, dated 24.01.2015 and the proceedings of 5th
respondent in Rc.No.No.A2/4481/2014, dated 03.02.2015, to restore
normalcy duly recalling orders of termination subsequent to reference to
Industrial Tribunalcum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam and in not restraining
the 6th respondent from taking action against the employees contrary to
the said G.O. directing to maintain status quo in terms of the said G.O. and
in not taking action as required under Section 29-A of I.D.Act, as bad,
illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, contrary to the provisions of said Act and
offends Articles 14, 16, 19 and 21 of Constitution of India and
consequentially, a) To direct the respondents No.2 to 5 to take necessary
steps to punish the 6th respondent by taking necessary steps including
initiation of prosecution as provided under Sections 25(T) & (U) of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for their committing of unfair Labour Parties.
b) To direct the respondents No.2 to 5 to take necessary steps to punish
the 6th respondent by taking necessary steps including initiation of
prosecution as provided under Sections 29 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
for non implementation of orders passed in G.O.Rt.No.21, date 19.01.2015
under Section 10 (b) of I.D.Act completely duly admitting all the employees
for duty so as restore normalcy as was existing as on 24.09.2014 on which
date reference to Labour Court was made. c) To direct the 4th and 5th
respondent to take necessary steps against the 6th respondent to restore
normalcy, duly recalling all the orders of termination/discharge of
employees, subsequent to order of reference by the 3rd respondent dated
24.09.2014, so as to restore normalcy in terms of G.O.Rt.No.21, dated
19.01.2015, duly reinstating all such employees (about 69), so terminated,
with all consequential benefits including back wages, and to pass..."
2. Brief facts of the case are that the 6th respondent is a leading
Pharma company which became a public limited company in the year 1992.
During 2000-2002, the 6th respondent company has established its pharma
unit at Pydibheemavaram village, Ranasthalam Mandal, Srikakulam District
and has started manufacturing drugs. In the said unit, there are 6000 workers
carrying out the manufacturing work, out of which 2500 workers are engaged
on regular basis and the remaining 3500 workers are employed on contract
basis. The regular employees who were working have formed a trade union
by registering the same vide proceedings dated 06.08.2013. It is further
narrated that the workers on contract basis had to go through various
struggles to form a union and thereafter got registered a union by name
'Aurobindo Pharma Employees Union' vide Regd.No.DCL/SKL/09/13, which is
the petitioner herein represented by its general secretary.
3. After obtaining certificate of registration of the petitioner trade
union, the petitioner union entered into an agreement under Section 12(3) of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in the presence of Additional Commissioner of
labour and State Conciliation Officer, A.P., Hyderabad and got the minutes
recorded on 30.09.2013. Thereafter the petitioner union has submitted a
charter of demands on 02.04.2014, requesting the management to consider
for pay revision of all the workmen in the 6th respondent establishment.
However, instead of taking steps to resolve the issues, the 6th respondent
company has started harassing the members of the petitioner union.
Thereafter, another representation has been submitted by the petitioner union
for conducting a joint meeting on the wage agreement and to discuss on the
charter of demands dated 02.04.2014. Accordingly, the 4th respondent has
conducted meetings on various occasions and on 22.09.2014, the 4th
respondent has intimated that in continuation of the earlier conciliation
proceedings, a joint meeting before the 3rd respondent is scheduled to be held
on 24.09.2014 with reference to the charter of demands of the petitioner
union. On 24.09.2014, the meeting was concluded and the next meeting was
posted on 08.10.2014. While so, vide proceeding No.H1/5565/2014, dated
24.09.2014 of the 3rd respondent, two disputes were referred for adjudication
to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, under Section
10(1)(c) of I.D. Act, 1947, which are as under:
"1. Whether the Aurbobindo Pharma Employees Union (IFTU)
(Regd.No.DCL/SKL/09/2013) is justified in contending that the Executives
come under the definition of "workmen" and in demanding applicability of
the wage agreement to the Executive?
2. Whether the Union is justified in demanding wage revision as per
charter of demands dated 02.04.2014?
If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled?
4. Thereafter, the 1st respondent has issued G.O.Rt.No.21, Labour
Employment Training & Factories (Labour) Department, dated 19.01.2015
with the following directions:
"...Government hereby prohibit the continuance of the strike by the
Aurobindo Pharma Employees union (IFTU) in the Unit-XI situated at
Paidibimavaram, Srikakulam District under the provisions of Section 10-B
(1) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 with immediate effect in the
interest of all including public.
2. The Management and the workers are also hereby direct under 10-B
(1) (a) of I.D. Act, 1947 to restore normalcy and maintain status quo in the
interest of the public, till the adjudication of the dispute pending before
Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Vishakapatnam on the reference
made by the Additional Commissioner of Labour, A.P., Hyderabad vide his
Proceedings No.H1/5565/2014, dated 24.09.2014."
5. After issuance of the aforesaid order, the respondent Nos.2 to 5
have consistently directed the 6th respondent vide proceedings dated
24.01.2015 and 03.02.2015 for compliance of the aforesaid order, however,
the 6th respondent management did not restore normalcy, duly allowing all the
employees for duty. Seeking a direction to the respondents for enforcement of
G.O.Rt.No.21, dated 19.01.2015, the present petition is filed.
6. When the writ petition came up for hearing on 27893 of 2015, this
Court has passed the following order in W.P.M.P.No.36195 of 2015:
"...It appears from the submission made by learned counsel and
averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that
workmen in whose favour the claim is made in this writ petition were
terminated/discharges in December, 2014 and January, 2015, prior to the
Government order. Order of the Government is not very clear as to
whether Government intended to extend its directions to the employees
who were already terminated/discharged. Since the order is not clear,
balance of convenience is not in favour of the petitioners to grant interim
order as prayed. WPMP is dismissed accordingly."
7. The respondent Nos.1 to 5 have filed a detailed counter affidavit
in the year 2016 denying the contentions raised by the petitioner and have
further stated that in all the representations, the petitioner union made
allegations against the respondent management in a routine manner and has
not represented any instance specifically to examine the issue of committing
of unfair labour practice by the 6th respondent management. The petitioner
union claimed that status-quo implies the status as on the date of unrest i.e.
strike by the petitioner union and insisted to allow all workers who were
retrenched/terminated subsequent to strike, but, the true spirit of G.O.Rt..21 is
to maintain status-quo as on the date of issue of the G.O., i.e. 19.01.2015,
which means, the strike by the petitioner union should be called-off by
resuming normal duties. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that it is
open to the petitioner union to represent such unfair labour practice before the
Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, since the issue which resulted
discontentment between the parties was already referred for adjudication.
8. It is further averred that the petitioner union always wished that
their demands are conceded by the Management irrespective of the
reasonableness, at the intervention of the official respondents. As it could not
succeed in respect of executives, it has tried to compel its Employer by using
the weapon of Strike. But, as the demand requires arbitration, the public
authorities referred the demand to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
for adjudication, while advising both parties to continue negotiations in-respect
of other-than Executives keeping in the interest of 1,800 staff, for which, the
Union did not accept and demanded to close the conciliation proceedings as
failed. Subsequent to the reference also, the Public Authorities had meetings
between the parties, but both parties stick to their own stands about
Executives. But, on the guise of unfair labour practice, the petitioner union
used to represent different forums with false allegations against Official
Respondents that they neglects in discharging their duties to punish the 6th
respondent management. As such, the claim of the petitioner union is purely
an allegation and devoid of merits. Therefore, the respondent Nos.1 to 5 have
requested to dismiss the writ petition as the same is devoid of merits.
9. The respondent No.6 has also filed a detailed counter affidavit
contending that the writ petition is not maintainable against the 6th respondent
company by relying upon the various judgments of this Court and the Hon'ble
Apex Court. It is further stated that during the month of November and
December, 2015, the 6th respondent herein was constrained to take action
against 68 employees i.e., 29 probationers and 30 executives
discharging/terminating from their services for various reasons, 9 suspended
employees were terminated from their services pursuance to the enquiries
conducted for their proved acts of misconducts. The Union Members as well
as the employees of the 6th respondent went on proceeding with their frequent
illegal strikes not heeding to the time to time advices of the Respondent
authorities to restore normalcy of the entire organization and that all the efforts
of the 6th respondent herein were in vain, it was further constrained to
approach the appropriate Government under the ID Act for invoking the
powers under Section 10-B of the ID Act, which culminated in issuance of
G.O.Rt.No.21, dated 19.01.2015 by the appropriate Government, specifically
prohibiting the continuance of the strike by the petitioner union with immediate
effect in the interests of all, including the public. It is further stated that as the
writ petition is wholly misconceived and not maintainable, the same is liable to
be dismissed.
10. Heard Sri. K. V. Satya Ramachandra Rao, learned counsel for
the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Labour and Sri. G.V.S.
Ganesh, learned counsel for the 6th respondent.
11. The facts of the writ petition are not in dispute. It can be observed
that the counter affidavit filed by respondent Nos.1 to 5 and by the 6th
respondent are filed in the year 2016. Subsequently, the 6th respondent herein
has filed a memo dated 27.09.2023 wherein it is stated that vide proceedings
dated 24.09.2014, the 3rd respondent has referred two disputes for
adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam in
exercise of his powers under Section 10(1)(c) of the I.D. Act. The said order of
reference was numbered as I.D.No.54 of 2014 and the Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam after trial, has passed the award dated
30.12.2019, which was published on 24.02.2023 vide G.O.Rt.No.185, Labour
Employment Training and Factories (OP) Department, dated 14.02.2002. It is
further stated that as per Section 10-B(2) of the ID Act, the order under
Section 10-B(1) of the ID Act shall lapse when the award of the tribunal or
labour Court in case of any industrial dispute raised and referred for
adjudication becomes enforceable. As such, G.O.Rt.No.21, dated 19.01.2015
issued by the 1st respondent herein stands lapsed on 24.03.2020 i.e. when the
award dated 30.12.2019 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Visakhapatnam in ID.No.54 of 2014 became enforceable in terms of Section
17 of the ID Act.
12. A memo dated 19.08.2024 was filed by the petitioner wherein
while referring to the aforesaid memo dated 27.09.2023, it is stated that during
the operation of the 10-B order the 6th respondent has dismissed the
employees which is in violation of Section 29-A of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947. It is further stated that the subject matter of I.D. No.54 of 2014 pertains
to wage revision of the employees and as such, it is no way concerned with
the present writ petition. Hence, requested to allow the writ petition and sought
a direction to the official respondents to prosecute the 6th respondent for
committing unfair labour practice and violation of 10-B order.
13. Admittedly, the disputes that were referred for adjudication to the
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, under Section 10(1)(c)
of I.D. Act, 1947, are as under:
"1. Whether the Aurbobindo Pharma Employees Union (IFTU)
(Regd.No.DCL/SKL/09/2013) is justified in contending that the Executives
come under the definition of "workmen" and in demanding applicability of
the wage agreement to the Executive?
2. Whether the Union is justified in demanding wage revision as per
charter of demands dated 02.04.2014?
If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled?
14. After a detailed trial, the 1st respondent has issued G.O.Rt.No.21,
Labour Employment Training & Factories (Labour) Department, dated
19.01.2015 with the following directions:
"...Government hereby prohibit the continuance of the strike by the
Aurobindo Pharma Employees union (IFTU) in the Unit-XI situated at
Paidibimavaram, Srikakulam District under the provisions of Section 10-B
(1) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 with immediate effect in the
interest of all including public.
2. The Management and the workers are also hereby direct under 10-B
(1) (a) of I.D. Act, 1947 to restore normalcy and maintain status quo in the
interest of the public, till the adjudication of the dispute pending before
Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Vishakapatnam on the reference
made by the Additional Commissioner of Labour, A.P., Hyderabad vide his
Proceedings No.H1/5565/2014, dated 24.09.2014."
15. For better understanding of the case, Section 10-B of the I.D. Act,
is extracted hereunder:
"10-B Power to issue Order regarding the terms and conditions of Service,
etc:-
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, if in the opinion of
the State Government, it is necessary or expedient so to do, for
securing the public safety or convenience or the maintenance of
public order or supplies and services essential to the life of the
community or for maintaining employment or maintaining industrial
peace, it may by a general or special order, make provision,
for requiring employers, workmen or both to observe for such
period as may be specified in the order, such terms and conditions
of employment as may be determined in accordance with the
order, and
for prohibiting, subject to the provisions of the order, strikes or
locks outs generally or a strike or lock out in connection with any
industrial dispute.
In case any industrial dispute is raised in respect of any provisions
in the order of the State Government made under sub-section (1)
within a period of three months of the order, it shall be referred by
the State Government for adjudication to an Industrial Tribunal or
Labour Court and the order shall lapse when the award of the
Tribunal or Labour Court becomes enforceable:
Provided that the reference of the industrial dispute to adjudication shall
not have the effect of staying the operation of the order vide act 32 of 1987
w.e.f. 27-7-1982."
16. From the above, it can be understood that the State Government
has the authority to issue orders to maintain public safety, order, essential
services, or industrial peace. These orders may include setting specific terms
of employment for employers and workers and prohibiting strikes or lockouts,
either generally or in relation to specific industrial disputes. If any dispute
arises regarding the order within three months, it must be referred to an
Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court. The order will expire once the tribunal's
decision becomes enforceable.
17. It can be seen that the main grievance of the petitioner is the
inaction of the respondent Nos.2 to 5 in taking steps to enforce G.O.Rt.No.21,
Labour Employment Training and Factories (Labour) Department dated
19.01.2015. However, pending the present writ petition, the Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, after trial, has passed an award on
30.12.2019 (referred supra), which became enforceable on 24.03.2020. As
per Section 10-B of the I.D. Act, the order passed under Section 10-B(1) of the
ID Act i.e. G.O.Rt.No.21, dated 19.01.2015 becomes lapsed on the date on
which the final award of the tribunal dated 30.12.2019 in I.D.No.54 of 2014
becomes enforceable i.e. on 24.03.2020. As such, this Court is of the opinion
that the cause in the writ petition would not survive for further adjudication.
18. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no
order as to costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also
stand closed.
_____________________
JUSTICE V. SUJATHA
Date: 13.11.2024
GSS
