British Airways Indian Air ... vs Regional Labour Commissoner And ...
2009 Latest Caselaw 3007 Del

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+W.P.(C) No. 10683/2009 and C.M. No. 9590/2009 (for stay)

%                 Date of Decision: 04th August, 2009


# BRITISH AIRWAYS INDIAN AIR HOSTESS' UNION
                                                   ..... PETITIONER
!                 Through: Mr. Bharat Sangal, Advocate

                                VERSUS

$ REGIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER & ANOTHER
                                               .....RESPONDENTS

^ Through: Ms. Kimmi Brara Marwaha, Advocate for

CORAM:

Hon'ble MR. JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL

1. Whether reporters of Local paper may be allowed to see the judgment? NO

2. To be referred to the reporter or not?NO

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?NO

S.N.AGGARWAL, J (ORAL) The petitioner is a registered trade union of the Cabin Crew

including Air Hostess' employed by the British Airways (Respondent No. 2

herein). The terms and conditions of service of the members of the

petitioner union is governed in terms of bipartite settlement dated

18.10.2007. The management of British Airways vide its communication

/ notice dated 15.07.2009 under Section 9 A of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947, sent to the Regional Labour Commissioner and also to the

petitioner union proposed to change some of the terms and conditions of

service of the members of the petitioner union. The petitioner union is

stated to have filed its reply dated 20.07.2009 to the said notice of the

management and the reply has been filed by the union before the

Regional Labour Commissioner. By way of its reply, the petitioner union

wants the Regional Labour Commissioner to admit the matter in

conciliation. The notice of the reply of the petitioner union was given to

the management by the Regional Labour Commissioner for 03.08.2009

and now the proceedings pursuant to notice of the management dated

15.07.2009 are stated to be listed for consideration before the Regional

Labour Commissioner on 13.08.2009.

2. In the present writ petition the petitioner has made the following

prayers:

(a) Issue a Writ of mandamus or a Writ, order or direction in the nature

of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 1, the Regional Labour

Commissioner, New Delhi to declare the conciliation proceedings in

regard to the proposed change in terms and conditions of service to have

commenced before 05.08.2009, and

(b) Issue a Writ of Mandamus, or a Writ, Order or direction in the nature

of Mandamus, directing the Respondent No. 2 the British Airways not to

give effect to the change in terms and conditions of service proposed in

its Section 9 A notice dated 15.07.2009 (Annexure P-4 supra), and

(c) Pass such other or further orders as may be deemed necessary by

the Court.

3. Mr. Bharat Sangal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioner, contends that the management cannot change the terms and

conditions of service of its members unless notice under Section 9 A of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is given by the management to the

Regional Labour Commissioner and also to the union. He further submits

that the effect to the notice cannot be given by the management before

expiry of 21 days from the date of notice. The contention of Mr. Sangal is

that since the petitioner union has responded to the notice of the

management under Section 9 A within the time span of 21 days provided

for giving effect to the contents of the notice and, therefore, according to

him, the Regional Labour Commissioner was obliged to admit the matter

in conciliation for exploring the possibilities of an amicable settlement in

regard to proposed change in the terms and conditions of service of the

members of the petitioner union. The petitioner apprehends that since

proceedings before the Regional Labour Commissioner are now listed for

13.08.2009, the management may give effect to the proposed change as

contained in its notice dated 15.07.2009 without hearing the petitioner

union in conciliation proceedings.

4. The proceedings pursuant to Section 9 A of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947, have already commenced before the Regional Labour

Commissioner and will culminate by passing of an appropriate order by

the Competent Authority under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. This

petition appears to be premature. In case, petitioner union has any

grievance against any order yet to be passed by the Regional Labour

Commissioner / Conciliation Officer, the petitioner shall be at liberty to

take such remedial measures to vindicate its grievance as may be

available to him in law.

5. In view of the above, this writ petition along with stay application is

dismissed as premature.

Order dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.

AUGUST 04, 2009                                        S.N.AGGARWAL, J
'bsr'