Bombay High Court
M/S. Pravi Auto Swing Pvt. Ltd vs Ashok Kisan More And Ors on 26 September, 2016
Bench: R.M. Savant
wp-7742-16-(23)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 7742 OF 2016
M/s. Pravi Auto Swing Pvt Ltd. )
L-41, Additional M.I.D.C. Sataram )
415004 through its Managing Director ) ..Petitioner
Vs.
1 Ashok Kisan More )
Residing at and post Rajarapuri )
Taluka and District Satara )
2 Hanmant Kisan Katkar )
At and Post Wade, District Satara
ig )
3 Anantkumar Sadashiv Pawar )
1443, Sambhaji nagar MIDC, Satara )
4 Dada Bhanudas Katkar )
C/o B. H. Pawar, Shrinagar Colony, )
Sangamnagar, Satara )
5 Ashok Uttamrao Nikam )
At and Post Kumathe, )
District Satara )
6 Ganesh Nathuram Kumbhar )
At and Post Navipeth, Taluka Patan )
District Satara )
7 Uttam Govind Tilave )
329/3/2, Plot No.15 )
Shivnagar, MIDC, Satara )
8 Rajesh Vinayakrao More )
Sagar Housing Society, Kodoli, )
Satara )
9 Uttam Atamaram Lade )
Tejaswi Bungalow, Ahire Colony, )
Degaon Road, Satara )
mmj 1 of 10
::: Uploaded on - 29/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/09/2016 00:39:24 :::
wp-7742-16-(23)
10 Jayawant Dhondiba Jadhav )
At and Post Kodoli, Satara )
11 Vijay Babanrao Jangam )
Bilvadal Ahire Colony, )
Degaon Road, Satara )
12 Shrikant Hanmant Kulkarni )
923, B-2, Anantlaxmi Nivas, )
Shaniwar Peth, Satara ) ..Respondents
Mr. Kiran Bapat i/b M/s Desai & Desai Associates for the Petitioner
Mr. Vaibhav Gaikwad for the Respondent No.1
ig CORAM : R. M. SAVANT, J.
DATE : 26th SEPTEMBER, 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT
1 Rule. With the consent of the Learned Counsel for the parties
made returnable forthwith and heard.
2 The Writ Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked against the judgment
and order dated 21-3-2016 passed by the Learned Member of the Industrial
Court by which order, the complaint in question being Complaint ULP No.54 of
2005 came to be allowed resultantly a declaration came to be issued that the
Petitioner herein who was the Respondent in the Complaint has engaged in
unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act
1971. A further direction came to be issued to the Petitioner to pay the
remaining subsistence allowance @ 75% for the period between 90 days to
180 days and thereafter @ 100% for the period beyond 180 days.
mmj 2 of 10
wp-7742-16-(23)
3 It is not necessary to burden this order with unnecessary details
having regard to the nature of the final directions to be issued. The
Respondents herein were in employment with the Petitioner. It seems that on
account of certain incidents which had taken place in the factory premises of
the Petitioner that a charge sheet came to be issued to each of the Respondents
alleging misconduct against them. In view of the situation prevailing in the
factory premises and outside it, which was on account of the acts of the
Respondents, the Petitioner had filed Complaint ULP No.59 of 2004 and in the
said Complaint, the Petitioner had filed an application for interim relief. In the
said application, an exparte ad-interim order came to be passed against the
Union representing the Respondents on 18-11-2004, and the interim relief
granted was that the Respondents Union and its office bearers, striking
workers their representatives, agents etc, were restrained from wandering,
sitting and loitering within the periphery of 1500 meters from the gate of the
factory of the Petitioner and the surrounding vacant area. They were further
restrained from obstructing the moments, jobs, material discharge, vehicles
visitors etc. It seems that though the said order was passed in the Complaint
ULP filed by the Petitioner, since a domestic inquiry had commenced against
the Respondents, the Petitioner vide its letter dated 14-2-2005 (similar letter
was addressed to all the Respondents) had informed the Respondents that the
interim order passed by the Industrial Court would not come in the way of the
mmj 3 of 10
wp-7742-16-(23)
Respondents from attending the inquiry proceedings. The Respondents replied
to the said letter vide their reply dated 21-2-2005 and in the said reply, it was
stated that in view of the interim order passed by the Industrial Court, it was
not possible for the Respondents to remain present in the inquiry proceedings.
It seems that the Petitioner thereafter applied for modification of the interim
order vide application Exhibit C-2. The said application came to be allowed
and the injunction was restricted to 500 meters from 1500 meters which was
originally granted. Upon this the Petitioner addressed another letter dated 2-6-
2005 to one of the Respondents (similar letters were addressed to all the
Respondents) intimating the Respondents that the subsistence allowance was
reduced to 50% of their entitlement. It seems that between 23-2-2005 and 29-
4-2005 the inquiry was held on 7 days when none of the Respondents had
remained present in the inquiry and this prompted the Petitioner to reduce the
subsistence allowance.
4 The reduction of the subsistence allowance resulted in the
Respondents filing Complaint ULP No.54 of 2005 under Item 9 and 10
Schedule IV of the said Act. In the said Complaint, the case of the Respondents
was based on standing order 25(5A) which postulates payment of 50% of the
wages as subsistence allowance for the first 90 days thereafter 75% for the
period from 90 days to 180 days and 100% for the period beyond 180 days. It
was the case of the Respondents in the said Complaint that the reduction in
mmj 4 of 10
wp-7742-16-(23)
the subsistence allowance in the teeth of the injunction obtained by the
Petitioner in the Complaint filed by it was not justified.
5 Per contra it was the case of the Petitioner in its Written Statement
that inspite of the notice issued to the Respondents to remain present in the
inquiry notwithstanding the order of injunction passed by the Industrial Court
the Respondents had refused to remain present and therefore the Petitioner
was entitled to reduce the subsistence allowance having regard to the proviso
to Standing Order 25(5A). The parties led evidence in respect of their
respective assertions. In so far as the Petitioner is concerned, it examined its
Managing Director, whereas on behalf of the Respondents one of the
Respondents deposed in the said Complaint.
6 The Learned Member of the Industrial Court ventured to
adjudicate upon the said Complaint on the basis of the material on record and
has accordingly allowed the said Complaint and issued the directions to the
extent mentioned in the earlier part of this order. The gist of the reasoning of
the Learned Member of the Industrial Court was that in the teeth of the order
of injunction obtained by the Petitioner, the Respondents could not be blamed
for not attending the inquiry in the period during which the injunction was
operating. The Learned Member of the Industrial Court therefore deemed it
appropriate to allow the Complaint and has directed the payment of
mmj 5 of 10
wp-7742-16-(23)
subsistence allowance to the Respondents to the extent mentioned in the
operative part of the impugned order.
7 Heard the Learned Counsel for the parties.
8 On behalf of the Petitioner it was the submission of the Learned
Counsel Mr. Bapat that though the Respondents were issued notice to remain
present notwithstanding the order of injunction passed by the Industrial Court,
they having not remained present and thereby delayed the inquiry, the
Petitioner was within its right to reduce the subsistence allowance having
regard to the priviso to Standing Order 25(5A). It was the submission of Mr.
Bapat that the Respondents were not entitled to 100% subsistence allowance
in view of Section 10A of the Standing Orders Act. It was the submission of Mr.
Bapat that Section 10A being the substantive provision would superimpose
itself upon Standing Order 25(5A) in the matter of payment of subsistence
allowance. In support of the said contention the Learned Counsel place
reliance on the Judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the matter of
May and Baker Ltd. Vs. Kishore Jaikishandas Icchaporia & Anr 1 and the
Judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of B. D. Shetty & Ors. Vs. Ceat Ltd
& Anr.2
9 Per contra the Learned Counsel Mr. Gaikwad appearing on behalf
of the Respondent No.1 would seek to support the impugned order. It was the
1 1991 MhLJ 1070
2 (2002) 1 Supreme Court Cases 193
mmj 6 of 10
wp-7742-16-(23)
submission of Mr. Gaikwad that in terms of Section 10A(3) the Respondents
are entitled to 100% subsistence allowance under Standing Order 25(5A) as
the said Standing Order is "any other law" contemplated by Section 10A(3).
Hence in so far as the Respondents are concerned, they were claiming 100%
subsistence allowance by placing reliance on Section 10A(3).
10 Having heard the Learned Counsel for the parties, I have
considered the rival contentions. The first issue which arises for consideration
in the above Petition is whether the Petitioner was entitled to reduce the
subsistence allowance payable to the Respondents. In so far as the said aspect
is concerned, the same is governed by Standing Order 25(5A). The said
Standing Order provides for the payment of the subsistence allowance and the
rate at which it is required to be paid. For the said purpose, there are three
time frames mentioned in the said Standing Order, as indicated above for the
first 90 days the subsistence allowance is payable @50% of the wages,
whereas for the period of 90 and 180 days its 75% and beyond 180 days it is
@ 100%. The proviso to the said provision carves out an exception in as much
as it confers power on the employer to reduce the subsistence allowance if the
delay in the inquiry is on account of the delinquent workman. In the instant
case, it is required to be noted that the Petitioner had filed a Complaint ULP
invoking provisions of the MRTU and PULP Act 1971 in view of the prevailing
situation in its factory premises and surrounding area. In the said Complaint,
mmj 7 of 10
wp-7742-16-(23)
the Petitioner had filed an application for interim reliefs. The said application
came to be allowed and the interim relief by way of injunction restraining the
Union representing the Respondents came to be granted restraining them from
wandering, sitting and loitering within 1500 meters of the factory premises.
The said injunction thereafter came to be restricted to 500 meters by an
application for modification made thereafter. However, the fact remains that
there was an injunction operating against the Union of which the Respondents
are the members. Hence letters addressed by the Petitioner to the Respondents
asking them to attend the inquiry proceedings would be of no avail in the light
of the fact that the Petitioner had obtained an injunction against the
Respondents. Hence the blame for not attending the inquiry proceedings
would not lie solely with the Respondents so as to dis-entitle them to part of
the subsistence allowance. Conversely the Petitioner obviously could not have
reduced the subsistence allowance by taking recourse to the provisio to
Standing Order 25(5A). Hence in so far as the said aspect is concerned, this
court endorses the view taken by the Industrial Court and therefore does not
deem it appropriate to interfere with that part of the impugned order.
11 Now comes the question whether the Respondents are entitled to
to 75% in the maximum or 100% of the subsistence allowance. As indicated
above Standing Order 25(5A) is the provision in contention which was
brought into service before the Industrial Court. However, during the course of
mmj 8 of 10
wp-7742-16-(23)
the hearing of the above Petition, the Learned Counsel appearing for the
Petitioner sought to place reliance on Section 10A of the said Act. Though the
adjudication before the Industrial Court was on the touchstone of Standing
Order 25(5A). However, in view of the fact that the entitlement of the
Respondents to the subsistence allowance is a question of law, this Court
deemed it appropriate to permit the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner to raise
the said contention and to deal with the said contention.
In so far as Standing Order 25(5A) is concerned, the same
provides for the payment of the subsistence allowance at the maximum of the
100% of the wages i.e. for the period 180 days. In so far as Section 10A is
concerned, it provides for the payment of subsistence allowance at 75% in the
maximum. However the provisio carves out an exception that if any other law
contains a more beneficial provision, then that provision would apply.
In so far as Standing Order 25(5A) of the Model Standing Order is
concerned, it is not "any other law" mentioned in Section 10A. The said issue
is no more resintegra and is covered by the Judgment of the Apex Court in
B.D. Shetty's case (Supra) wherein the Apex Court has referred to the
judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in May and Baker Ltd. (supra). The
Apex Court held that the "any other law" necessarily refer to the law other
than one covered by the very Act and Rules made thereunder, meaning thereby
the Standing Orders. The Apex Court has lastly held in the said case that the
contention urged on behalf of the workman that they are entitled to 100&
mmj 9 of 10
wp-7742-16-(23)
subsistence allowance cannot be accepted in view of the specific provision
contained in Section 10-A of the said Act. Hence the Apex Court has impliedly
held that Section 10A would over ride or superimpose itself on Standing Order
25(5A) and hence the workman would be entitled to the payment of
subsistence allowance at the maximum of 75%.
12 Having regard to the judgment of the Apex Court in B. D. Shetty's
case (supra) the contention urged on behalf of the Respondents by the Learned
Counsel Mr. Gaikwad, cannot be accepted. The Respondents would therefore
be entitled to payment of subsistence allowance at the maximum of 75%. The
impugned order passed by the Learned Member of the Industrial Court would
accordingly have to be modified to the extent that for the period beyond 90
days the Respondents would be entitled to subsistence allowance at the
maximum of 75%. Clause (3) of the impugned order would accordingly stand
modified.
13 The Petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule is accordingly
made absolute with parties to bear their respective costs of the Petition.
[R.M.SAVANT, J]
mmj 10 of 10
