Voltas Switchgear Plant ... vs Voltas Switchgear Ltd.
2001 Latest Caselaw 11 Bom

JUDGMENT

V.C. Daga, J.

1. Heard. Rule returnable forthwith. Respondent waives service.

2. The petition in question is directed against the interim order dated December 20, 1999, passed by the Industrial Court, Thane, refusing to grant interim relief under Section 30(2) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "MRTU and PULP Act" for short).

3. The petitioner is a registered trade union recognised under the provisions of] MRTU and PULP Act and represent all the workmen employed in the Switchgear Factory at Thane run by the respondent/company. The respondent/company is a public limited company having its registered office and its factory at 2nd Pokhran Road, Thane. The company is engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing of electrical switchgears, panels and other accessories having 560 employees including supervisors; and managerial staff.

4. The present controversy involved in the petition relates to the mode and manner of effecting revision in canteen rates, which had been fixed by the respondent/company as back as in 1972, which were not thereafter revised.

5. The petitioner claimed that foods and other items were supplied to the workmen in the canteen at the rates fixed mutually. The; petitioner further claimed that revision in canteen rates could not have been effected without prior consultation of the Canteen Managing Committee, required to be constituted under the provisions of the. Factories Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act", for short) and the Maharashtra Factories Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"). It was urged on behalf of the petitioner that respondent/company has no right to unilaterally increase the rates of foodstuff, beverages and any other items served in the canteen. Reliance was placed on Section 46 of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. The petitioner further contended that the Canteen Managing Committee formed under Rule 84 of the Rules, has never consented to increase the rates and no meetings have been held in order to discuss and decide upon the increase in canteen rates. In the circumstances, the submission was that the respondent/ company could not have bypassed statutory provisions requiring prior consultation with Canteen Managing Committee and had no right to straightway increase the rates. The reliance was also placed upon the settlement dated October 7, 1994 and particularly, Clause 22 whereby the respondent/company agreed that the practice/facilities as per the Settlement would continue.

6. It was strenuously urged on behalf of the petitioner that the increase in rates has resulted in increase in deductions from the workers' salaries thus amounted to an illegal change within the meaning of Section 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, since no notice Under Section 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, has been given. The revision of rates, are illegal and could not have been allowed to stand or at any rate cannot be allowed to be acted upon.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further tried to borrow support from Rule 82 of the Rules, and contended that it is obligatory on the part of the management to display on the notice board, the charges per portion of foodstuffs, beverages and any other items served in the canteen. In his submission Rule 82, contemplates or presupposes the determination of rates or prices thereof. As such according to him under Rule 82 it was obligatory on the part of the management to consult the Canteen Managing Committee before finalisation of the rates of the foodstuff, beverages and any other items served or to be served in the canteen.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/company in reply contended that the annual canteen expenses, both for material and labour put together, are approximately in the sum of Rs. 80 lakhs and respondent/ company has been absorbing huge amount of canteen subsidy since 1974 when the prices of foodstuff, served in the canteen, were last fixed. It was further contended that considering the current business position and losses incurred for couple of years the respondent/ company found it difficult to absorb huge subsidy. It was submitted that in recent past the respondent/company has initiated several costs cutting measures, one of them being fair revision of rates or prices of the items served in the canteen. The respondent/company further contended that the company had sought co-operation from the petitioner/Union, however, no fair solution on the issue could be discussed. It was further contended that the Union had submitted their Charter of Demands, which were under discussion and consideration and during the course of discussion, the petitioner/Union adopted non-cooperative and adamant attitude and, therefore, no fair solution on the issue could be discussed. It was thus contended that in view of non-cooperative and adamant attitude on the part of the petitioner/Union, it was decided by the management to display notice revising rates of foodstuffs. Beverages and any other items served or to be served in the canteen and accordingly, notice dated October 7, 1999 was displayed on the notice board and copy of the same was served on the petitioner/Union. It was further sought to be urged that the revised rates itself would reveal that 50% of the costs is to be incurred by the company and, therefore, it was urged that the rates sought to be increased, are fair and reasonable. The respondent/company further contended that under Section 46 of the Act read with Rules 79 to 85 of the Rules, it nowhere required a consultation much less discussion with the Canteen Managing Committee on the rates of the canteen items. It was thus sought to be urged that the respondent/company has not bypassed any of the statutory provisions. In his submission by no . stretch of imagination Section 9-A of Industrial Disputes Act could be pressed into service. The learned counsel for the respondent/company while concluding his submissions, urged for dismissal of the petition with costs.

9. The aforesaid rival contentions have given rise to following question:

"Whether it was obligatory on the part of the respondent/company to have prior consultation with Canteen Managing Committee while revising the rates of foodstuffs, beverages and any other items served in the canteen, established under Section 46 of the Factories Act, 1948?"

10. The Factories Act, 1948, was enacted to consolidate and amend law regulating labour in factories and employer is obliged to provide canteen facility as one of the welfare activities. The canteen facility is made mandatory in any specified factory wherein more than two hundred and fifty workers are ordinarily employed, and canteen or canteens are required to be provided and maintained by the employer/occupier for the use of the workers. The employer is required to run canteen on "No profit No loss basis". In order to see that the canteens are run properly, the State Government in exercise of power conferred under the Act has framed the Rules known as Maharashtra Factories Rules, 1963. Rule 79 to 85 are the prescribed Rules under Section 46 of the Act. Rules 82, 84 and 85 are the relevant Rules for determination of question raised in the petition which are reproduced hereinbelow:

"82. Prices to be displayed - The charges per portion of foodstuff, beverages and any other items served in the canteen shall be conspicuously displayed in the canteen.

83.....

84. Managing Committee - (1) The Manager shall appoint a Canteen Managing Committee which shall be consulted from time to time as to-

(a) the quality and quantity of foodstuffs to be served in the canteen;

(b) the arrangement of the menus;

(c) times of meals in the canteen; and

(d) any other matter pertaining to the canteen as may be directed by the Committee:

Provided that where the canteen is managed by a co-operative Society registered or deemed to be registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960- It shall not be necessary to appoint a Canteen Managing Committee.

(2) The Canteen Managing Committee shall consist of an equal number of persons nominated by the occupier and elected, in the case where there is a Joint Committee constituted under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 or any other Committee constituted under any law for the time being in force consisting of representatives of an employer and workers in a Factory, by the members of such Joint Committee or of such other Committee representing the workers and in any other case, by the workers themselves.

The number of elected workers shall be in the proportion of 1 for every 1,000 workers employed in the factory provided that in no case shall there be more than 5 or less than 2 workers on the Committee.

(3) The manager shall in consultation with the members of the Joint Committee, if any, determine and supervise the procedure for election to the Canteen Managing Committee.

(4) Canteen Managing Committee shall be reconstituted every two years, the previous Managing Committee holding office till such time as the new Committee takes charge.

85. Foodstuffs to be served and prices to be charged- (1) The Chief Inspector may, by an order in writing, direct the manager to provide in the canteen any item of foodstuff if he is satisfied that such item is in general demand. Such order shall specify the size of each portion to be served, the number of the portions which shall be available and the frequency of service, the particular item per week. Such order shall also specify the time limit within which the order shall be complied with.

(2) Food, drink and other items served in the canteen shall be sold on non-profit basis and in computing the charges to be made for such food, drink or other items the following items shall not be taken into consideration, namely:

(a) the rent for the land and building;

(b) the depreciation and maintenance charges of the building and equipment provided for the canteen;

(c)   the    cost    of   purchase,    repairs   and replacement of equipment including furniture, crockery, cutlery and utensils: 
 

(d) the water charges and other charges incurred for lighting and ventilation: and  
 

(e) the interest on the amounts spent on the provision and maintenance of furniture and equipment provided for the canteen: 

Provided that where the canteen is managed by a co-operative society registered or deemed to be registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, such society may include in the charges to be made for any such food, drink or other items served, a profit up to 5 per cent on its working capital employed in running the canteen."

Rule 82 makes it obligatory to display on the notice board prices charged per portion for foodstuff, beverages and any other item served in the canteen. Rule 84 contemplates appointment of Canteen Managing Committee by the Manager. The said Committee is required to be consulted from time to time, as to the quality and quantity of foodstuffs to be served in the canteen; the arrangement of the menus; times of meals in the canteen; and any other matter pertaining to the canteen as may be directed by the Committee. The said Committee is required to be appointed in pursuance of Sub-clause (2) of Rule 84 of the Rules. The said Canteen Managing Committee is required to be reconstituted every two years. The outgoing Managing Committee is allowed to hold office till such time as the new Committee takes charge.

11. Rule 85 provides for foodstuffs to be served and prices thereof to be charged. The said rule lays down that the Chief Inspector may, by an order in writing direct the manager to provide in the canteen any item of foodstuff if he is satisfied that such item is in general demand. Such order is required to specify the size of each portion to be served, the number of portions which shall be available and the frequency of serving the particular Item per week. It is also necessary to specify in the order the time limit, within which the order is to be complied with. Items served in the canteen are

required to be sold on non-profit basis. While computing the charges to be made for such food, drink or other items, the Items mentioned in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 85 are required to be excluded from consideration, namely, rent, for the land and building; the depreciation and maintenance charges of the building and equipment provided in the canteen costs of purchase, repairs and replacement of equipment including furniture, crockery, cutlery and utensils; water charges and other charges incurred for lighting and ventilation; and interest on the amounts that has been spent on the provision and maintenance of furniture and equipment provided for the canteen.

12. If one compares the language used in Rule 85 with that of Rule 84 it will be crystal clear that in the same enactment, and in relation to same subject-matter, different words are used. The Courts are obliged to see whether the Legislature has not made the alteration intentionally and with some definite purpose. Prima facie, such alteration has to be considered intentional. When the Legislature in the rules falling in the same group or chapter uses different words, it must be presumed that they were used in order to express different ideas. The Legislature must always be presumed to aim at precision and in so doing would naturally follow the safe rule of always calling the same thing by the same name, but if it has used two different expressions though analogous in nature in different parts of the same rules. It must be presumed, that they were intended to be used in different senses, The Courts should be reluctant to hold that two provisions couched in different language bear the same meaning.

13. Let us dissect the provision of Rule 85 in the light of Rule 84 of the Rules. Rule 85 gives specific power to the Chief Inspector and also provides for mode and manner for exercising such power. As against this Rule 84 of the Rules provides for mere consultation that too on the subjects mentioned therein. Both provisions operate in different fields. The Chief Inspector alone in certain contingency has been given power to determine rates or prices to be charged for such items which are in general demand. Considering the language used in Rules 84 and 85, one can safely reach to the conclusion that specific power to determine the prices or rates relating to the foodstuffs, beverages and any other items to be served in the canteen which are in general demand, is beyond the purview of the Canteen Managing Committee as such for the determination of prices thereof, prima facie no consultation with the Canteen Managing Committee is contemplated under Rule 84 of the Rules. The field for both authorities is separately demarcated under the rules. They cannot be allowed to overlap on each other.

14. On the aforesaid interpretation of Rules 82, 84 and 85, if the impugned order passed by the learned Member of the Industrial Court, is examined, it will be clear that the Industrial Court has rightly reached the conclusion that fixing new rates to be charged, cannot be said to be within the purview of the Canteen Managing Committee constituted or to be constituted under Rule 84 of the Rules. No fault with the finding recorded in this behalf can be found.

15. The Industrial Court also recorded a finding that fixing of rates of canteen items, cannot be the condition of service under Section 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and consequently the canteen facility and fixing new rates to be charged cannot be said to be the condition of service. The said finding of the Industrial Court is based on the Judgment of this Court in the case of Blue Star Workers Union v. Blue Star Ltd., reported in 1992-I-LLJ-239 (Bom) wherein the learned single Judge of this Court has categorically held that: "canteen facility and the rates to be charged for food items is not a condition of service." No case is made out by the petitioner/Union to depart from the view in the field since 1990 in the matter of Blue Star Workers Union (supra).

16. In my view the impugned order of the Industrial Court, Thane, refusing to grant interim relief, cannot be faulted, with the result the petition in question must fail. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. There will be no order as to costs.