The Post And Telegraph Mazdoor ... vs The General Manager, Telecom ...
2004 Latest Caselaw 395 Bom

JUDGMENT

Nishita Mhatre, J.

1. By this Petition, the Petitioner Union challenges the award of the Presiding Officer of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal rejecting the reference made for adjudication. The dispute has arisen in the following manner:

A Committee was appointed by the Central government known as Central Trade Revenue committee to review and rationalize the existing industrial trades in order to improve the efficiency and productivity. The following terms were referred to the Committee:

(a) Job evaluation and rationalization/re-categorisation of trades of Industrial staff in Telecom Factories including review and re-drafting of detailed job description in the light of experience gained with a view to improve productivity.

(b) Suggesting proper balances in different trades including fixation of rations, stagnation and revision of promotional avenues.

(c) Removal of disparities/anomalies in various trades and in the staffing pattern for similar jobs in different Telecom Factories.

(d) Review of existing recruitment procedures for industrial staff.

(e) Suggesting ways and means for deploying the industrial labour on diversified jobs taking into account the advancement in technology and introduction of modern methods of production.

2. The Committee submitted its report to the Government in July 1983. One of the recommendations was that the machine operators who were performing the work of semi-skilled nature should be placed in the skilled category in the payscale of Rs. 260-400 (pre-revised). These recommendations, according to the Petitioner, were made applicable to all machine operators in various factories of the Respondents. A further recommendation was made that the Machine Setters cum Operators should be redesignated as machine operators in the same scale of Rs. 260-400 (pre-revised). Accordingly, the categories of machine operators and machine setters cum operators were amalgamated and both categories were entitled to the payscale of Rs. 260-400 (pre-revised).

3. The machine operators in various telecom factories were placed in the semi-skilled category, the recommendations of the Committee were accepted by the Government and, accordingly, the telecom factories in Kolkata and Jabalpur implemented the recommendations. However, the Mumbai telecom factory refused to implement the recommendations. Aggrieved by this non-implementation of the recommendations, the Petitioner approached the first respondent by a representation dated 30.9.1985 requesting that the recommendations be accepted and implemented in the Mumbai telecom factory as well. As the first Respondent did not accede to the representation, the Petitioner approached the machinery constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act. There being no consensus between the parties, a failure report was submitted. However, no reference was made. The Petitioner was, therefore, constrained to file Writ Petitioner No. 62 of 1991 before this Court challenging the inaction of the appropriate government in referring the dispute for adjudication. This Court by order dated 27.1.1992 directed that a reference be made for adjudication. Accordingly, the appropriate government referred the following dispute for adjudication before Respondent No. 2:

"Whether the action of General Manager, Telecom factory, Bombay in implementing the decisions of "Central Trade Review Committee" in truncated shape was justified and not causing discrimination between workman and workman in the category of setters cum-machine operators in the Telecom Factory, by not fixing them in the skilled category in the wages scale of Rs. 260-400 (pre-revised) w.e.f. May, 1985? If so, what relief the workman concerned are entitled to?"

4. The pleadings of the parties were filed. Evidence of the officer bearer of the Petitioner was recorded by way of an affidavit. Respondent No. 1 filed purshis stating that they did not wish to lead oral evidence. After consideration of the pleadings and the evidence on record, the Industrial Tribunal passed the award dated 16.5.1995 rejecting the reference. The Tribunal was of the view that there was no discrimination between the machine operators and machine setters cum operators employed at Mumbai and those who were employed at Jabalpur and Kolkata branches. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that minutes were recorded accepting the recommendations with some modification in Mumbai, to the extent that the ratio of 3:1 between the machine operators (semi-skilled) and machine setter cum operators (skilled) was to be maintained while implementing the recommendations. The Tribunal was of the view that there was no discrimination between the two categories of machine operators and machine setters cum operators and it was only in respect of the future recruitment that recruitment could be made to the post of machine setter cum operators. The Tribunal has also observed that the ratio 3:1 had been accepted in both Jabalpur and Kolkata.

5. Mr. Patil, learned Advocate for the Petitioner takes strong exception to the findings of the Tribunal. He submits that there was no evidence on record for the observation made by the Tribunal that the ratio 3:1 had been accepted in the factories at Kolkata and Jabalpur. He further submits that the recommendations had been accepted by the Government in toto and accordingly had been implemented in the Jabalpur and Kolkata factories. Therefore, there was no reason for not implementing the recommendations qua the Mumbai telecom factory. He urges that Respondent No. 1 could not decide to implement the recommendations in a different manner. The recommendations could be accepted or rejected or modified only by the Government. There was nothing on record to indicate that the government had so modified the recommendations of the Committee. He, therefore, submits that the findings of the Tribunal that there was no discrimination between the machine operators and machine setters cum operators if the recommendations of the Central Trade Review Committee was implemented in a truncated form by implementing the ratio 3:1 are without any basis.

6. The extract of the Committee's report in respect of the machine operators and machine setters cum operators is reproduced below:

"Machine operators who are in the semi-skilled category in the scale of pay of Rs. 21-290 are operating various types of machine like drilling tapping, screwing, etc. The four spindle drilling machines were telegraph, telephone brackets are drilled are being operated by workers in the skilled category, who are designated as "Machine Setter-Cum-Operator".

"The Operators should not only have sufficient knowledge of machines, but also possess such knowledge to check to some extent the quality of the production coming out of the machines. He should be in the position to detect and rectify certain minor operational defects, so that, the effective machines working hours are not lost. He should also be able to set tools, grind and shape simple tools used in the machines. He should not fully depend on others viz. setters, etc. for quality production".

7. From the above, it is impossible to understand how the ratio of 3:1 has been introduced. The Tribunal has observed that the Government had not accepted the recommendations of the Committee in toto but had examined and found that the job of machines operators are repetitive and skill required for operating such machines was not the same and, therefore, the ratio 3:1 had been introduced. There is nothing on record to indicate that any evidence was produced before the Tribunal whereby it was demonstrated that the Government had not accepted the recommendations in toto. The finding of the Tribunal it appears is based on the pleadings in the written statement. However, merely on the basis of the pleadings, Tribunal could not have inferred that the recommendations of the committee had not been accepted by the government without any modification. It was necessary for the Respondent to establish before the Tribunal that the recommendations had been accepted only in part or with some modifications. Not having done so, the Tribunal had erred in accepting the pleadings in the written statement, stating that the recommendations had been accepted with modifications as gospel truth.

8. Moreover, a categoric statement was made in the statement of claim as well as in the affidavit of the Petitioner stating that the recommendations had been accepted and implemented in their entirety qua the machine operators and machine setters cum operators in the telecom factories at Jabalpur and Kolkata. The witness for the Petitioner has not been cross-examined on this count. The Respondents have stated that they did not want to lead any evidence before the Tribunal. Therefore, the observations of the Tribunal that the ratio 3:1 had been accepted in the two telecom factories is incorrect and based on no evidence at all.

9. This being the position, the award is set aside. Respondent No. 1 is directed to implement the decision of the Central Trade Review Committee in respect of the machine operators and machine setters cum operators as implemented by the telecom factories in Kolkata and Jabalpur immediately, with effect from the date when it was implemented in the Kolkata and Jabalpur factories.

9. Rule made absolute accordingly with costs.