Central Silk Board vs The Central Silk Board Employees Union ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 22410 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Central Silk Board vs The Central Silk Board Employees Union ... on 4 September, 2024

                                                             R
   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

                        PRESENT

       THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

                          AND

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

        WRIT PETITION NO.18693 OF 2014 (L-RES)

BETWEEN:

CENTRAL SILK BOARD
BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY
C.S.B. COMPLEX
BTM LAYOUT
MADIWALA
BENGALURU-560 068
                                             ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. N.S. NARASIMHA SWAMY, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1 . THE CENTRAL SILK BOARD
    EMPLOYEES UNION (R)
    NO.121/A, 1ST MAIN ROAD
    1ST CROSS, SHAKTHI GARDEN
    MUDALA PALYA
    BENGALURU-560 072
    BY ITS SECRETARY

2 . UNION OF INDIA
    MINISTRY OF TEXTILES
    UDYOG BHAVAN
    NEW DELHI-110 001
    REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
                                           ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. V.S. NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1;
     V/O DATED 30.04.2014, R2 IS NOT A PROPER AND
     NECESSARY PARTY FOR THIS PROCEEDING)
 -

                                2




     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
AWARD OF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-
LABOUR COURT IN CR No.151/2007 DATED 01.04.2013 AS PER
ANNEXURE-Q AND AS REFERRED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
AS PER ANNEXURE-P DATED 27.08.2010 BY ISSUE OF WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER OR
DIRECTION AND ETC.

      THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 14.08.2024 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, ANU SIVARAMAN
J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM:    HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
          and
          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

                      CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)

This Writ Petition is filed by the Central Silk Board

Management challenging the Award dated 01.04.2013 in

C.R.No.151/2007 passed by the Central Government

Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court (hereinafter referred

to as "CGIT" for short).

2. The Central Government exercising powers

conferred under Section 2(a)(1)(d) read with Section 10 of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following

question for adjudication of the CGIT:-

-

"Whether the demand of the Central Silk Board Employees Union for enhancement of retirement age from 55 years to 60 years for the time scale farm workers is legal and justified? If yes, to what relief the workmen are entitled to?"

3. After considering the contentions advanced and

the material placed on record, the CGIT issued Annexure 'Q'

- award. The operative portion of which reads as follows:-

"The reference is allowed holding that the demand of the Central Silk Board Employees Union for enhancement of retirement age from 55 years to 60 years for the time scale farm workers is legal and justified and that they are entitle to enhancement of their retirement age from 55 years to 60 years."

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner raises

following contentions:-

• The dispute was raised by the Union Central Silk Board

Employees Union. It is argued that since the Union is

registered only under the State Government, not the

Central Government, it fails to meet the requirement of

Section 2(qq) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Thus, the

-

dispute is not maintainable, as affirmed by past judicial

decisions, it is contended.

• The Central Silk Board is established under the Central

Silk Board Act, 1948, Section 11 gives powers to the

Central Government to control and modify the Board's

actions. Section 13(2)(viii) speaks of framing rules for

the approval of the budget and Section 13(2)(xiv)

speaks of framing of rules for the staff. The retirement

age of Time Scale Farm Workers (TSFW) was raised

from 55 to 58 years as per a Central Government

directive.

• The Central Government has the power to issue service

conditions, including retirement age, through

administrative instructions even if not explicitly

covered by legislation. This was affirmed by the Apex

Court in various judgments.

• The Central Silk Board does not have certified standing

orders, meaning the model standing orders apply.

These model orders set the retirement age at 58 years,

-

consistent with the Provident Funds and Miscellaneous

Provisions Act.

• Courts should not interfere with policy decisions of the

Government, especially in financial matters. The

Central Government's decision to set the retirement

age is within its legislative and executive powers.

• Employees of autonomous bodies, like the Central Silk

Board, cannot claim the same benefits as Government

employees, even if the Board adopts Government

Service, Rules or receives Government funding. This

principle was upheld by the Apex Court in several

cases.

• The Supreme Court in a recent case on menstrual pain

leave held that it is a policy matter for the

Government, not the Courts, to decide.

• Casual labour and daily wagers, like TSFW, cannot

claim the same rights as Government employees, as

their employment is not governed by regular

appointment procedures or recruitment rules.

-

• Work-charged employees, such as TSFW, do not have

permanent status and cannot claim service conditions

equivalent to those of permanent Government

employees.

• Even workers who have gained temporary status do

not achieve permanent status unless selected through

regular procedures.

• Courts cannot impose new obligations on the parties

that go beyond the existing industrial law, as held by

the Apex Court.

• Orders issued by the Central Government under its

executive powers, like the one setting the retirement

age, are binding. The labour court cannot override

such decisions.

• The Central Government has been restructuring the

Board by closing and merging units, reducing staff, and

transferring activities to State Governments. This cost-

saving effort makes it financially burdensome to

increase the retirement age for farm workers.

-

• The increase in the retirement age would impose a

significant financial burden on the Government, which

has already been reducing staff and restructuring the

Central Silk Board to cut costs.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in support

of his contentions, relied on the following decision:-

• State of Tripura & Others v. Rina Purkayashta & Another reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 387;

6. The learned counsel for the respondents submits

that the CGIT passed an award on 01.04.2013 answering

the points of dispute in favour of the Union and held that the

Union is justified in demanding enhancement of retirement

age from 55 years to 60 years and that the workmen are

entitled for the said relief. Since, the Management has

agreed for enhancement of age of retirement to 58 years,

the only question which requires to be examined is with

regard to enhancement of age of retirement up to 60 years.

7. It is submitted that, admittedly, the dispute is an

industrial dispute as defined in Section 2(k) referred by the

appropriate Government for industrial adjudication under

-

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as

"the Act" for short). The dispute is between the workmen

represented by the first respondent - Union and the

petitioner i.e., Management of Central Silk Board.

8. The contention of the petitioner was that the

order dated 08.08.2012 vide Annexure-N, is statutory in

nature under Section 13(2)(xiv) of the Central Silk Board

Act, 1948 and, therefore, the CGIT has no power to pass

any Award contrary to the said statutory provision.

However, the petitioner-Management in paragraph No.2 of

the Counter Statement has stated as under:

"The Casual Farm Workers/Time-Scale Farm Workers are not governed by the CSB Act & Rules but their wages and service conditions are governed by the Labour Laws/Guidelines framed by the Board from time to time."

9. It is submitted that Annexure-L Agreement is not

a settlement either under Section 2(p) of the Act or a

conciliation settlement or a settlement to be accepted as

"settlement under the provisions of the Act" since the same

has not been forwarded to the Labour Department as

-

required under the Act. Even otherwise, it is an agreement

not on all India basis but between the Management of

Central Sericultural Research and Training Institute Mysuru

and the Workers Union. This is the agreement dated

01.08.1970. Assuming for the sake of argument that it is an

agreement under the provisions of the Act, it is

impermissible for the petitioner to contend that the terms of

the said settlement are to be continued even after 54 years.

10. It is submitted that Annexure-N is only

recommendatory in nature. Admittedly the petitioner-

Management did not take any steps to make the Ministry of

Textile/Central Government as a party to the dispute. The lis

was between the Management and the Union which has

been rightly held by this Hon'ble Court while granting an

interim order on 20.04.2014.

11. As regards the contention urged by the petitioner-

Management with regard to the policy of recruitment of staff

which would obviously have serious financial impact and in

this regard, reference is made to the judgment of the Apex

-

Court in Food Corporation of India and others v. Bhanu

Lodh and others reported in AIR 2005 SC 2775, is wholly

misconceived. The Management did not place any material

worth the name at the time of industrial adjudication and

hence this ground is also liable to be rejected.

12. Further, the CGIT was correct in applying the

principle of "Region-cum-Industry" as similar organizations

under other Ministries had already enhanced the retirement

age to 60 years. The demand for retirement age

enhancement was justified based on the increased lifespan

and parity with other organizations like the Indian Council of

Agricultural Research (ICAR) and National Seeds

Corporation Limited.

13. The learned counsel for the first respondent, in

support of his contentions, relied on the following

decisions:-

• Western India Automobile v. The Industrial Tribunal, reported in AIR 1949 SC 111;

• The Bharat Bank Ltd., Delhi v. Employees of the Bharat Bank Ltd., reported in AIR 1950 SC 188;

-

• Indian Overseas Bank v. I.O.B. Staff Workers' Union, reported in (2000) 4 SCC 245; and

• The Management of M/s. Grasim Industries Ltd. v. The General Secretary, Harihar Polyfibers and Others, disposed of on 05.07.2022 passed in WA No.100250 of 2021 (L-RES).

14. Having considered the contentions advanced on

either side, we are of the opinion that a challenge to

adjudication by the CGIT is to be considered taking note of

the accepted principles for considering challenges against the

award by CGIT. The Industrial Disputes Act provides the

adjudicatory mechanism for considering disputes between

Managements and Workmen. Though the petitioner had

raised the contention before the CGIT that the age of

retirement of Time Scale Farm Workers is a matter of policy

to be taken by the Central Government, the CGIT considering

the reference found that the retirement age of permanent

employees of the Management stood enhanced to 60 years.

It was also found that in respect of similarly situated

employees of similar Industries and Establishments as well,

the age of retirement was 60 years.

-

15. The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is a self

contained code providing for settlement of Disputes,

principally between employees and workmen. When a

dispute falls within the definition of an Industrial Dispute

under Section 2(k) of the Act, the mechanism under the Act

can be activated. A reading of Section 10 would indicate that

essential pre-requisite for making a reference to the Courts

or Tribunals is the existence or apprehension of an Industrial

Dispute, in the opinion of the appropriate Government.

16. In the instant case, the appropriate Government is

admittedly the Central Government. The Central

Government, being satisfied as to the existence of an

Industrial Dispute has thought it fit to refer the parties to the

CGIT. In the said circumstances, and on an anxious

consideration of the scheme of the Act and the Rules made

there under, as well as Section 11 of the Central Silk Board

Act, 1948, we are of the clear opinion that the grounds urged

by the petitioner that the dispute could not have been

adjudicated by the Tribunal are totally devoid of merits.

-

17. Section 11 of the Central Silk Board Act, 1948,

only provides as follows:-

"11. Control by the Central Government:

(1) All acts of the Board shall be subject to the control of the Central Government which may cancel, suspend or modify as it thinks fit any action taken, or order passed, by the Board.

(2) The records of the Board shall be open to inspection at all reasonable times by any officer authorized in this behalf by the Central Government."

18. Neither Section 11 nor the power in the Central

Government to frame Rules under Section 13(2)(xiv) of the

Central Silk Board Act, 1948, to regulate the working

conditions of the staff which may be employed by the Board

and the pay and allowances, leave and other conditions of

service of officers and other employees of the Board would,

in our opinion restrain either the reference of a dispute with

regard to the retirement age of Time Scale Farm Workers

under the Board nor the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal

to consider the dispute and pass an award thereon.

-

19. The decisions relied on by the petitioner also are

not authority on the point that only a Central Government

registered trade union can maintain a dispute before the

CGIT. The decision relied on by the learned counsel for the

petitioner specifically was with regard to the right of an

unregistered association to approach either the Supreme

Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India or the High

Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 provides for adjudication of

industrial disputes and for maintenance of industrial peace by

way of settlement of disputes. Once a reference is made by

the Central Government finding that there is an industrial

dispute in existence, we find nothing in the provisions of the

Act or the Rules which provides that it is only a Trade Union

registered under the Central Government that can maintain a

dispute before the CGIT.

20. The judgment in W.A.No.407/2007 dated

13.08.2007, which is also relied on by the petitioner

specifically considered the question whether the writ petition

by an unregistered Union is maintainable before the High

-

Court and whether the Government was justified in refusing

to refer a dispute and issuing endorsement under Section

12(5) of the Act. The Court held that an unregistered Union

cannot maintain a writ petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India. We find nothing in any of the

authorities placed on record, which supports the contention

of the petitioner that a Union registered only under the State

Government could not have represented the workmen before

the CGIT in a dispute admittedly referred to the CGIT for

adjudication.

21. The learned counsel for the petitioner has taken

us through the material which was produced on either side

before the CGIT. It was after considering all the contentions

advanced and after adverting to the material before it, that

the CGIT had come to the conclusion that the claim raised by

the Union was justified since all other similar employers were

continuing their employees till the age of 60 years. The CGIT

found that no material could be placed on record by the

Management to justify its contention that Time Scale Farm

Workers of the management alone were not eligible for the

-

said relief. It was found that in other Central Government

Bodies and Corporations as well, the age of retirement of

casual labourers stood enhanced to 60 years. It was after

considering all such contentions that the CGIT came to the

conclusion that the age of retirement was liable to be

enhanced to 60 years in the case of the respondent-Union as

well.

22. The contention that the decision was taken by the

CGIT without reference to the material on record does not

appear to be justified since both sides had produced records

before the CGIT which were looked into for coming to the

conclusion. Further, it is clear that the scope of interference

by a Writ Court in awards of Industrial Tribunals, including

Central Government Industrial Tribunals is quite narrow and

is circumscribe by the principles clearly enunciated by the

Apex Court.

23. In the case of General Manager, Electrical

Rengali Hydro Electric Project, Orissa and others v.

Giridhari Sahu and others reported in (2019) 10 SCC

-

695, the Apex Court has clearly held that it is only in case of

patent illegality or manifest unreasonableness that this Court

would be justified in interfering in an award of a Tribunal

under the Industrial Tribunal's Act. The Act being a beneficial

piece of legislation and the Tribunal being a specialised body,

specifically empowered to consider specific disputes between

management and workmen, we are of the opinion that the

award of the Tribunal cannot be lightly interfered with.

24. Having given our anxious consideration to the

pleadings of the parties and the materials on record as well

as the materials placed on record before the Tribunal, we are

not convinced that there is any patent illegality in the award,

which requires interference by this Court in exercise of its

extraordinary jurisdiction.

25. In the above view of the matter, we are of the

opinion that the petitioner cannot succeed in the writ

petition. The writ petition therefore fails, the same is

accordingly dismissed.

-

Pending I.A.No.1/2015, I.A.No.3/2016, I.A.No.1/2018

and I.A.No.3/2022, are hereby dismissed.

Sd/-

(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE

Sd/-

(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE

cp*