Bombay High Court
Shramik Sena And Anr vs Grindwell Norton Ltd. And Anr on 16 August, 2017
Bench: Prasanna B. Varale
Chittewan 1/5 902. WP 9293-17+50. WP 9199-17.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.9293 OF 2017
Shramik Sena And Another ... Petitioners
Versus
Grindwell Norton Ltd And Another ... Respondents
ALONGWITH
WRIT PETITION NO.9199 OF 2017
Grindwell Norton Limited ... Petitioner
Versus
The Transport and General Kamgar
Union And Others ... Respondents
.....
Mr. Avinash K. Jalisatgi i/b Mr. Amol Desai for the Petitioners in Writ
Petition No.9293 of 2017 and for the Respondents in Writ Petition No.9199
of 2017.
Mr. Sudhir Talsania, Senior Counsel a/w Ms. M. D'Souza i/b Mr. Avinash
Fatangare for Respondent No.1 in Writ Petition No.9293 of 2017 and
Petitioner in Writ Petition No.9199 of 2017.
.....
CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.
DATE : 16 AUGUST 2017
P.C. :
. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners. Both these petitions,
namely, Writ Petition No.9293 of 2017 and Writ Petition No.9199 of 2017,
challenge an order passed by the Member, Industrial Court, Thane, as such
both these petitioners are heard together. Learned Counsel appearing for
the Petitioners in his detailed submission, submitted that the order passed
by the Member, Industrial Court, Thane is clearly unsustainable on more
than one ground. The sum and substance of submission of Learned
Chittewan 2/5 902. WP 9293-17+50. WP 9199-17.doc
Counsel for the Petitioners is that the Petitioners had a settlement with two
unions, namely, Respondent Nos.2 and 3, and such of the last settlement
was on 30 August 2011. It was also the submission of learned Counsel that
a new charter of demands was submitted on 18 July 2014. It is an
admitted position that none of these three unions is recognized union and
Respondent No.1 union entered into field recently. It is submitted that
Respondent No.1 union also submitted the charter of demands in earlier
round of litigation. When the reference was made, the matter reached to
this Court. In the earlier round of litigation, a Division Bench of this Court
on the submission made by learned AGP as well as learned Counsel
represented by Respondent No.4 in that petition (i.e. Respondent No.1 in
the present petition) that the issue raised about productivity be also
considered in the course of conciliation proceedings. Division Bench of this
Court in view of the submission made by learned Counsel, deemed it fit not
to interfere with the order of reference dated 26 October 2015 or to issue
any directions as prayed for by the Petitioner and the Industrial Tribunal
was directed to dispose of the reference in accordance with law on its own
merits.
2 Learned Counsel for the Petitioners then submitted that during the
pendency of the reference, Respondent No.1 filed a complaint and the
application was moved seeking interim order and that was opposed by the
Petitioners and submitted before the Learned Member of the Industrial
Court that there was no settlement arrived at between the Petitioners and
Respondent Nos.2 and 3. It was submitted that though the Petitioners
offered various members of Respondent No.1 to participate in the
proceeding of settlement, but for the adamant approach of Respondent
Chittewan 3/5 902. WP 9293-17+50. WP 9199-17.doc
No.1, the Petitioners could not set out any term with Respondent No.1.
Whereas, Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 unions agreed to arrived at with the
terms of the settlement. My attention was also invited to these terms of
settlement. The submission of learned Counsel is that Respondent No.1
union on its willingness and wish was not ready to accept these terms and
was free to opt out and raise other demands. The learned Member on
erroneous assumption and presumption and more particularly on a ground
that the settlement arrived at between the Petitioners and Respondent
Nos.2 and 3 was in due haste and not bona fide opposed the order, thereby
the Petitioners were directed to grant interim wage rise at the rate of
Rs.3,000/- per month to each employee till the decision of a complaint or
till the decision of the interim order in Reference (IT) No.48 of 2015,
whichever is earlier. It is the submission of learned Counsel appearing for
the Petitioner that there was absolutely no demand from Respondent No.1
for wage rise at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month nor there was any prayer
in the application, but the learned Member, Industrial Court, Thane
passed the order granting wage rise. Learned Counsel by inviting my
attention to affidavit in reply, opposing the application for ad-interim order
submitted that majority of workmen of these two unions, namely,
Respondent Nos.2 and 3 have accepted the terms and benefits of
settlement dated 12 July 2017. The Petitioners by settlement are ready to
give an average increase in wages of Rs.5730/-per month. There is also rise
in food expenses, shift allowances etc. In view of the increase in wage and
benefits, employees and their Unions have agreed to increase productivity
by minimum 15% above the present plant level output of 132%. The
submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners is that it was nobody's
case for enhancement in the pay wage rise at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per
Chittewan 4/5 902. WP 9293-17+50. WP 9199-17.doc
month and on the contrary, the learned Member of the Industrial Court
entrusted this wage rise on the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 unions. It is also
submission of learned Counsel for the Petitioners that in view of the
provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act ("Act"), the settlement is binding to
the parties. Respondent No.1 is not a party to the settlement. Learned
Member of the Industrial Court erroneously treated the settlement between
the parties as if the settlement or award under Section 18(3) of the Act.
Learned Counsel submitted that the learned Member of the Industrial
Court also lost sight of the fact that there is absolutely no change of
condition in the terms of settlement between the Petitioners and
Respondent Nos.2 and 3 unions. It is the submission of learned Counsel for
the Petitioners that the learned Member of the Industrial Court as if the
terms were settled between the parties and the settlement was effected.
Learned Member of the Industrial Court ought not to have rejected the
application the application of the Petitioners. Learned Counsel appearing
for the Petitioners placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the
case of National Engineering Industries Ltd Vs. State of Rajastan And
Others1 and Herbertsons Limited Vs. The Workmen of Herbertsons
Limited And Others2. The other submission of learned Counsel is of the
breach of principle of natural justice, namely, none grant of opportunity of
hearing. The submission is that before granting wage rise as interim wage
rise to the workmen at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month, no opportunity of
hearing was granted and the learned Member of the Industrial Court, on
his own arrived at and set the amount at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month
as wage rise, causing a serious prejudice to the Petitioners.
1 (2000) 1 Supreme Court Cases 371
2 (1976) 4 Supreme Court Cases 736
Chittewan 5/5 902. WP 9293-17+50. WP 9199-17.doc
3 Learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.1 pray time on the
ground that learned Senior Counsel appearing for Respondent No.1 is not
available and requests for short adjournment. Learned Counsel for the
Petitioners pray for interim stay. In my opinion, learned Counsel has made
out a case for interim stage. There will be ad-interim relief in terms of
prayer clause-(b).
4 Stand over to 6 September 2017.
(PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.)
