Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the
consent of the learned Advocates appearing for the parties.
02. The present petition is filed challenging the award dated
No.CGIT/NGP/233/2003. The controversy in the present petition pertains to
represented by recognized union viz. Rashtriya Kolya Khadan Mazdoor Sangh
(INTUC). The petitioner and respondent Nos.3 to 20 hereinafter referred to as
employer and employees respectively. The dispute pertains to Clause 1.3 i.e.
"That the management shall on conversion from PR to TR/Mr
will fully protect the Group Wages including SPRA wherever
applicable. The basic pay so fixed in the TR/MR category/grade if
exceeds the maximum of the category/grade, the balance will be
treated as personal pay to the person concerned which shall be
adjusted in the subsequent revision of pay/promotion. This decision
shall be effective from 01/01/1992. It is also agreed that the cases
already converted between 14/11/90 to 31/12/91 shall be
considered for national fixation only and earlier cases will not be
considered."
03. The employees were working in Majri Area of the employer,
which is a subsidiary of Coal India Limited. The employees were initially
working as Loaders in Group V-A and paid salary as Peace Rated Workers
(PRW) as per National Coal Wage Agreements (NCWA). The employees were
paid salary of PRW along with Special Peace Rate Allowance (SPRA), which is
in the nature of annual increment and some other allowances.
04. The employees were converted from PRW to Time Rated
Workers (TRW), resulting in reduction of their wages. The employees raised
the issue with the employer individually and also through the Union.
However, since the persuasion was not successful, the employees approached
the Regional Labour Commissioner (RLC). However, the matter could not be
resolved, as a consequence of which, the RLC forwarded a failure report
pursuant to which the Central Government made a reference as contemplated
under Section 10(1)(d) and Section 10(2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 (hereinafter referred to as "ID Act" for brevity) . Pursuant to the said
reference, the aforesaid Case No.CGIT/NGP/233/2003 came to be registered.
The employees filed their statement of claim contending that the action on the
part of the employer was in contravention of settlement dated 02/11/1992. It
is contended that although talks were on going for modification of the said
settlement, no decision with respect to modification of the settlement was
arrived at. They contended that the settlement dated 02/11/1992 was
enforceable and binding between the parties. The employees also placed
reliance on Certified Standing Orders of the employer, which provide for pay
protection of employees in case of transfer of services from one job to another
to contend that assuming that the settlement was amended/modified, the
same will not be enforceable since it will be contrary to the Certified Standing
Orders. Apart from this, contention was also raised that pay protection to the
similarly circumstanced employees was granted by the petitioner-employer in
Chandrapur Area. The employees also contended that their status from PRW
to TRW was altered by the employer and, therefore, their pay ought to have
been protected, even if it is assumed that the settlement dated 02/11/1992
was modified on 31/10/1995 as contended by the employer.
05. The employer filed written statement contending that the
settlement dated 02/11/1992 was partially modified with effect from
31/10/1995 as per the decision arrived at between the Management and the
Union-RKKMS in its meeting held on 31/10/1995. The employer contended
that in view of decision dated 31/10/1995, employees who were getting
salaries as PRW, who themselves opted for conversion into TRW, were not
entitled for pay protection and that in such cases, their salaries were payable
in the scales prescribed for TRW. The employer further contended that the
present employees had made request for altering the nature of their job from
PRW to TRW.
06. The employees examined certain witnesses in the matter. The
said witnesses were not cross-examined by the employer. The employer has
26.wp.3111.21.jud.doc 10/18
also not entered the witness box. After hearing the rival submissions, the
learned Tribunal has answered the reference in favour of the employees vide
award dated 28/10/2019. The learned Tribunal has held that the minutes of
discussion dated 31/10/1995 do not have the effect of amendment
to/modification of settlement dated 02/11/1992. It is held that the employer
had granted benefit of pay protection to similarly circumstanced employees in
other areas and, therefore, the same yardstick was required to be applied to
the present set of employees. It is also held that the employees were entitled
to pay protection in view of Clause 21.1 of the Certified Standing Orders.
07. Thus, the controversy in the present petition principally revolves
around interpretation of minutes of meeting/record of discussion dated
31/10/1995 and Clause 1.3 of the settlement dated 02/11/1992. Apart from
this, question of binding efficacy of Clause 21.1 of the Certified Standing
Orders also arises for consideration. It is also required to be determined as to
whether the employer can treat similarly circumstanced employees working in
different areas in a different manner.
08. Clause 1.3 of the settlement dated 02/11/1992 will demonstrate
that on conversion of status of employees from PRW to TRW, the employer
was under obligation to protect the wages of such employee including the
SPRA (Annual Increment). The said clause does not make any distinction
with respect to cases under which the conversion of status of the employee
from PRW to TRW is at the behest of the employer or on the request of the
26.wp.3111.21.jud.doc 11/18
employee. Perusal of Clause 1.3 will demonstrate that pay protection was to
be granted on conversion of status from PRW to TRW in all cases, irrespective
of the fact as to whether the conversion was at the request of the employee or
not.
09. The contention of the employer is that the aforesaid Clause 1.3 is
modified in view of Record Note of Discussions/Minutes of Meeting dated
31/10/1995. Clause 1 of the Record Note of Discussion dated 31/10/1995
will indicate that in cases where status of PRW was altered to TRW at the
option of the employee or in case of selection through internal notification for
time rated/monthly rated jobs, the pay of such employee will be fixed at the
rates prescribed for TRW and no personal pay will be allowed to the
employee, as is allowed to PRW after 01/11/1995. Perusal of Record Note of
Discussion dated 31/10/1995 will demonstrate that the Record Note of
Discussion supersedes all other discussions held earlier on the subject. The
document also states that parties have decided to move
amendment/modification as per the discussion held on 31/10/1985.
However, Clause 7 of the document also records that in view of the result of
the modification, there will be no claim from either side against the other.
10. Clause 7 gives an impression that the earlier settlement dated
02/11/1992 was in fact altered/modified. However, perusal of the
introductory paragraph and Clauses 6 and 8 of the document gives an
impression that the earlier settlement dated 02/11/1992 was not actually
26.wp.3111.21.jud.doc 12/18
modified/altered and that no final decision in the matter was taken. It will be
pertinent to mention that settlement dated 02/11/1992 is arrived at in
conciliation proceedings as per Section 12(2) of the ID Act. Perusal of Clause
6 of Record Note of Discussion will demonstrate that the parties had
contemplated discussion on certain other items before moving the RLC for
amendment of the settlement. It is not in dispute that the parties did not
approach the RLC for amendment of the settlement.
11. It will be pertinent to mention that the employer had issued
notice dated 21/02/1995 for termination of settlement dated 02/11/1992.
However, vide subsequent communication dated 02/03/1995, notice of
termination dated 21/02/1995 was kept in abeyance by the employer. There
is no document indicating that the said letter dated 02/03/1995 was
withdrawn. There is no document indicating fresh notice for termination of
settlement dated 02/11/1992 was issued. It will, however, pertinent to
mention that the employer has issued letter dated 27/04/1996 to the
Assistant Labour Commissioner (ALC) informing that the settlement dated
02/11/1992 was superseded on 31/10/1995. It appears that copy of Record
Note of Discussion dated 31/10/1995 was forwarded along with the said
letter. However, letter dated 27/04/1996 is sent individually by the employer.
The Union has not sent similar letter to the ALC. Likewise, perusal of letter
dated 27/04/1996 does not indicate that copy thereof was marked to Union
of Workers or to individual worker.
26.wp.3111.21.jud.doc 13/18
12. The learned Tribunal has interpreted the terms of Record Note of
Discussions dated 31/10/1995 and has held that the settlement dated
02/11/1992 was not altered or modified and that the said Record Note of
Discussion only indicated that discussions were on going for proposed
modification/amendment of the settlement. It is held that the settlement was
not actually amended or modified. The view taken by the learned Tribunal is a
possible view. The decision is arrived at by taking into consideration the
contents of settlement dated 02/11/1992 and Record Note of Discussion
dated 31/10/1995 along with respective pleadings and evidence. This Court
sees no reason to take a different view of the matter in exercise of it
supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
13. It will be pertinent to state that the Rule 58(4) of the Industrial
Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 provides that when a settlement is arrived at
between the employer and workmen outside conciliation proceedings, the
parties to the settlement shall jointly send a copy thereof to the Chief Labour
Commissioner (Central), Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and
Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central). In the case at hand, admittedly
such joint communication is not issued by the parties to the said authorities.
This is another circumstance, which will indicate that the Record Note of
Discussion dated 31/10/1995 is not a settlement by itself or a document
under which settlement dated 02/11/1992 was altered or modified.
26.wp.3111.21.jud.doc 14/18
14. Assuming that the settlement dated 02/11/1992 is altered or
modified with effect from 31/10/1995, in the considered opinion of this
Court, the same amendment/modification cannot operate to cause reduction
in the wages payable to the employees. It will be pertinent to mention that the
Certified Standing Orders govern the service conditions of the employees.
Clause 21.1 of the said Standing Orders provides that workmen will be
transferred from one job to another and in case of such transfer, the pay of the
worker should be protected. The work of PRW is of loading coal from
underground mines. The work of TRW is of different nature and these
workers do not work in underground mines. Thus, the transfer of workers
from PRW to TRW is a transfer of job under the Standing Order 21. The pay
of the workers is required to be protected in view of the Standing Order 21.
The Certified Standing Orders have primacy over settlements and any clause
in a settlement, which is contrary to a Standing Order, is unenforceable. The
legal position in this regard is no longer res integra as will be apparent from
perusal of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Western
India Match Co. Ltd. vs. Wormken, reported in AIR 1973 SC 2650 and other
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred in the said judgment.
15. The learned Tribunal has also recorded that the employees had
come up with a case that their services were converted from PRW to TRW by
the employer due to reduction in cadre strength of PRW on account of advent
of modern equipment and machinery. The employees have entered the
26.wp.3111.21.jud.doc 15/18
witness box with deposed about the same. The employer has not conducted
cross-examination of the said witnesses to dispute the contention. The
employer has also not entered the witness box. The learned Tribunal has
nonetheless also taken into consideration certain documents on record and
has recorded a finding of fact that the employer had failed to prove that
conversion of status of PRW to TRW was at the request of the employees
concerned. There is no material on record to disturb this finding of fact
recorded by the learned Tribunal. In view of the above, even if it is assumed
that the settlement dated 02/11/1992 was modified on 31/10/1995, even
then benefit of pay protection needs to be granted to the employees.
16. The employees have come up with a specific contention that in
other mining areas of the petitioner/employer, benefit of pay protection is
granted to similarly circumstanced employees. This contention is not denied
in the written statement. The employer has come up with a stand that the
decisions taken with respect to workers in other mining areas will not be
applicable and binding on the petitioner with respect to Majri Mining Area
where the present set of employees were working. The contention of the
petitioner-employer is liable to be rejected. The petitioner-employer cannot
apply different yardsticks to its employees working in different mining areas.
The learned Tribunal has rightly rejected the said contention raised by the
petitioner-employer.
26.wp.3111.21.jud.doc 16/18
17. For the reasons recorded above, in the considered opinion of this
Court, no case for interference is made out. The writ petition is, therefore,
dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs.
WRIT PETITION NO.3359 OF 2021
WRIT PETITION NO.3747 OF 2021
WRIT PETITION NO.5699 OF 2021
18. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the
consent of the learned Advocates appearing for the parties.
19. The petitioners in the present petitions are workers employed
with the respondent-W.C.L. The reference under Section 10 of the ID Act was
made by the Central Government to the learned Tribunal at the behest of 103
employees including the present petitioners. The names of the present
petitioners and some other employees were ordered to be deleted by the
learned Tribunal vide order dated 20/08/2018 recorded in the order-sheet.
The names of the petitioners and other employees were deleted in view of the
pursis filed by the learned Advocate representing the petitioners before the
Tribunal. The petitioners state that they had not instructed the learned
Advocate to withdraw the reference proceedings on their behalf. The
petitioners had moved applications seeking recall of the order dated
20/08/2018 recorded in the order-sheet, whereby their names were ordered
to be deleted from the reference proceedings. The said application filed by
the petitioners were dismissed by the learned Tribunal vide award dated
26.wp.3111.21.jud.doc 17/18
28/10/2019, whereby the reference with respect to other workers is allowed
on merits.
20. It is not in dispute that the claim of the present petitioners is
identical with the claim of other workers, who were parties to the aforesaid
reference proceedings. The dispute pertains to pay protection of the
petitioners and other workers on conversion of their status from PRW to TRW.
Since the reference is decided on merits in favour of the workers and Writ
Petition No.3111 of 2021 filed by the employer-W.C.L. is dismissed by this
Court vide instant judgment, it will be appropriate in the interest of justice
that the writ petition should be allowed so as to enable the present petitioners
to reap benefits of the award passed in favour of identically circumstanced
workers. In the considered opinion of this Court, adopting such a course will
sub-serve the ends of justice. It will not be appropriate to deprive the
petitioners of the benefits of the award passed by the learned Tribunal in
favour of the workers, whose cases are identical with that of the present
petitioners.
21. In the considered opinion of this Court, it is not necessary to go
into the correctness or otherwise of the allegations levelled by the petitioners
against their learned Advocate appearing before the learned Tribunal that he
had made the motion for withdrawal of reference on their behalf without
instructions from them. In view of the aforesaid, Writ Petition
26.wp.3111.21.jud.doc 18/18
Nos.3359/2021, 3747/2021 and 5699/2021 are allowed in the following
terms:
22. Order dated 20/08/2018 passed by learned Tribunal in order-
sheet in deleting the names of the petitioners from Case
No.CGIT/NGP/233/2003 is quashed and set aside. It is directed that the
petitioners will be treated as parties to Case No.CGIT/NGP/233/2003 decided
by the learned Tribunal, Nagpur vide award dated 28/10/2019 and shall be
entitled to the benefit of the said award.
23. Rule is made absolute in the above terms with no order as to
costs.
(Rohit W. Joshi, J.)
*sandesh
Signed by: Mr. Sandesh Waghmare
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 07/11/2025 16:39:27
