Workmen Of Hindustan Aeronautics ... vs Hindustan Aeronautics Limited
2022 Latest Caselaw 2354 Kant

                           1




   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

      DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                       BEFORE

          THE HON' BLE MR.JUSTICE R DEVDAS

          REVIEW PETITION NO.349 OF 2021

BETWEEN

WORKMEN OF HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED
REPRESENTED BY THE HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS
EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION,
A TRADE UNION REGISTERED UNDER
THE TRADE UNIIONS ACT, 1926
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT HINDUSTAN
AERONAUTICS LIMITED, VIMANAPURA POST,
BENGALURU-560017
REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY,
SRI SURYADEVARA CHANDRASHEKAR
                                       ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI. K. SUBBA RAO, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
    SRI. SATHEESHA K. N, ADVOCATE)

AND

HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT 1956,
REGISTERED AND CORPORATE OFFICE AT
NO.15/1, CUBBON ROAD, BENGALURU-560001
REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER (HR)
                                            ...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. PRADEEP S. SOWKAR, ADVOCATE)
                             2




     THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLVII
RULE 1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE READ WITH
SECTION 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER HAS FILED THE
ABOVE REVIEW PETITION UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC,
PRAYING THIS HONBLE COURT TO A) ALLOW THE REVIEW
PETITION AND REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 08/10/2021 PASSED
BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP NO. 3784/2021 IN SO FAR AS
THE DIRECTION ISSUED AT PARA 14 (III) OF THE ORDER,
WHICH IS AN ERROR APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD
AND WHICH IS IN EXCESS OF THE JURISDICTION OF THIS
HON'BLE COURT AND DELETE THE SAID DIRECTION AT PARA 14
AND ETC.

     THIS REVIEW PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:


                        ORDER

R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):

This review petition is filed seeking review of the

judgment of this Court passed on 08.10.2021.

2. The petitioner-union had filed the writ petition

calling in question a communication dated 18.1.2021 and

circular dated 05.05.2017 issued by the respondent - HAL.

The grievance of the petitioner-union was that there were

certain benefits given to the workman of the respondent

company in the matter of medical reimbursement benefits

etc. That benefit that was given to the workman was

sought to be curtailed by the impugned communication

dated 18.01.2021 by bringing about certain changes to the

medical policy. This Court allowed the writ petition while

noticing that the word "wages" were defined in Section

2(rr) of the Industrial Disputes Act, which would include the

value of 'medical attendance' and other amenity. Therefore

this Court negatived the argument of the learned counsel

for the respondent-management that medical benefits/

reimbursement do not form part of the conditions of

service. Even otherwise, this Court held that the medical

policy being in place for decades, it would definitely classify

as conventions also. Ultimately, this Court held that when a

procedure is prescribed in law for bringing about a change

in the policy, the respondent-management could not have

proceeded to unilaterally alter any part of the policy. This

Court held that respondent - Management is required to

issue notice in terms of Section 9A of the Industrial

Disputes Act and thereafter proceed in accordance with law.

3. Learned Senior counsel Sri K.Subbarao,

appearing for the review petitioner submits that the

directions/observations of this Court that the respondent-

management was required to issue notice in terms of

Section 9A to Industrial Disputes Act and thereafter proceed

in accordance with law has given a handle to the

respondent-management while this Court should not have

issued such direction.

4. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel for the

review petitioner, learned counsel Sri Pradeep.S.Sawkar,

appearing for the respondent-management and on perusing

the grounds urged in the review petition, this Court is of the

considered opinion that the petitioners have not made out

any case for review of the judgment passed by this Court.

This Court has specifically pointed out to a provisions of law

and directed the respondent-management to follow the said

provisions. If the petitioner-union is of the opinion that

such a direction could not have been issued and the

provisions of Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act

cannot invoke by the respondent-management, then it is a

matter for an appeal. At any rate, this review petition

cannot be allowed.

5. Consequently, the review petition stands

dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

KLY