Avtec Evam Hindustan Motors Shramik ... vs Avtec Limited
2025 Latest Caselaw 1856 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Avtec Evam Hindustan Motors Shramik ... vs Avtec Limited on 21 July, 2025

Author: Vivek Rusia

Bench: Vivek Rusia

                           NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:18732


                                                          -1-                       MP-2843-2023
                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                        AT INDORE
                                                  BEFORE
                                      HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
                                                      &
                                 HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
                                        MISC. PETITION No. 2843 of 2023
                                AVTEC EVAM HINDUSTAN MOTORS SHRAMIK SANGH
                                                    Versus
                                         AVTEC LIMITED AND OTHERS

                           Appearance:
                                  Shri Shashank Sharma - Learned counsel for the petitioner.
                                  Shri Girish Patwardhan - Learned senior counsel alongwith Ms.
                           Kirti Patwardhan - Learned counsel for the respondents.

                                                    WITH
                                         MISC. PETITION No. 2076 of 2024
                                 AVTEC AND HINDUSTAN MOTORS SHRAMIK SANGH
                                                    Versus
                                         AVTEC LIMITED AND OTHERS

                           Appearance:
                                 Shri Shashank Sharma - Learned counsel for the petitioner.
                                 Shri Girish Patwardhan - Learned senior counsel alongwith Ms.
                           Kirti Patwardhan - Learned counsel for the respondents.

                                         MISC. PETITION No. 2077 of 2024
                                 AVTEC AND HINDUSTAN MOTORS SHRAMIK SANGH
                                                    Versus
                                         AVTEC LIMITED AND OTHERS
                           Appearance:
                                 Shri Shashank Sharma - Learned counsel for the petitioner.
                                 Shri Girish Patwardhan - Learned senior counsel alongwith Ms.
                           Kirti Patwardhan - Learned counsel for the respondents.
                                     Reserved on     :      10.07.2025
                                     Delivered on    :      21.07.2025




Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DIVYANSH
SHUKLA
Signing time: 21-07-2025
17:50:59
                            NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:18732


                                                              -2-                         MP-2843-2023
                                                            ORDER

Per: Justice Vivek Rusia

This batch of writ petitions instituted under Article 227 of the Constitution of India arises from award dated 04.07.2022 (pronounced on 14.07.2022) by the learned Industrial Tribunal, Indore in Complaint Case Nos. 03/I.D./2017, 71/I.D./2018 and 01/I.D./2016.

02. The learned Tribunal by the impugned award has rejected the complaints filed by the petitioner/union under Section 33-A read with Section 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 challenging the alleged illegal deductions from wages of the workmen and alterations in service conditions during the pendency of conciliation and adjudication proceedings.

03. The petitioner is a registered trade union representing the workmen employed at the industrial establishment of Respondent No. 1/Avtec Ltd. which is a company engaged in the manufacture of automotive components having its factory situated at Pithampur, Dhar.

04. The case of the petitioner is that in its representative capacity it had consistently entered into settlements with the respondents regarding the terms and conditions of service of the workmen including wages, allowances and other employment benefits.

05. The last settlement reached between the parties was entered into agreement dated 29.08.2012 which remained in force from 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2015. Upon the expiry of the said settlement, the petitioner submitted a charter of demands on 05.03.2015 seeking increase in wages and other benefits. However, the management did not accede to the demands and no fresh settlement could be arrived at.

06. The petitioner contended that the respondents instead of engaging in bona fide negotiation resorted to coercive tactics such as victimization of office-bearers, initiation of disciplinary proceedings and

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:18732

-3- MP-2843-2023 unilaterally changing the wage structure by making illegal deductions. The appropriate government made multiple references to the Industrial Tribunal at Indore which came to be registered as Reference Case No. 39/I.D.R./2016, 06/I.D./2017, 23/I.D./2016, 07/I.D./2016 and 124/I.D./2016.

07. The learned Industrial Tribunal vide its award dated 31.10.2018 (pronounced on 15.11.2018) in Reference Case No.39/I.D.R./2016 allowed an enhancement of ₹10,000/- per month and held that all other terms of the prior settlement dated 29.08.2012 would continue.

08. The said award was upheld by this court in W.P. No.28237/2018 vide order dated 04.01.2019 and a Special Leave Petition against the said decision is stated to be pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP (Civil) Nos. 15593-94/2019.

09. The learned Tribunal in Reference Case No.06/I.D./2017 vide award dated 20.06.2022 (pronounced on 29.06.2022) observed that there was no provision in the settlement dated 29.08.2012 which allowed deduction of regular wages of employees for non-achievement of production targets and held the wage deductions for December 2015 and January 2016 to be illegal and ordered for payment of the wages of that duration with 9% p.a. interest within two months.

10. During the pendency of the above references the respondents issued a circular dated 07.01.2017 informing the workmen that regular wages would henceforth be paid on actual production basis and that pro rata deductions would be made from wages. The petitioner contended that this unilateral change in the wage structure during the pendency of Reference Case No.39/I.D.R./2016 at that time is an illegal alteration in service conditions which violates the provisions of Section 9-A and Section 33 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:18732

-4- MP-2843-2023

11. The petitioner thus invoking its representative character under Sections 33-A and 36 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 filed three separate complaints before the Industrial Tribunal, Indore which are:

• Complaint No.03/I.D./2017 dated 31.01.2017 - challenging wage deductions for December 2016 and January 2017.

• Complaint No.71/I.D./2018 dated 30.10.2018 - challenging deductions for the period from February 2017 to January 2018.

• Complaint No.01/I.D./2016 dated 21.09.2016 - challenging wage deductions for December 2015 to February 2016.

12. In all the said complaints, the petitioner contended that the action of the employer caused an illegal change in conditions of service which violated the provisions of I.D. Act and that the complaints made in a representative capacity is maintainable under Section 36 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 as it empowers the union to appear and act on behalf of the employees. The petitioner further contended that regular wages were protected under the existing settlement and the production- based formula change in wages amounted to an illegal change in service conditions within the meaning of Item No.1 of the Fourth Schedule of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.

13. The respondents in their rely filed before the tribunal submitted that no change in service conditions had been made and the deductions were in accordance with the incentive scheme which did not disturb the settled agreement and further submitted that the complaints were not maintainable as the union had no right to represent individual workmen without their specific authorization.

14. Both parties led oral and documentary evidence and upon conclusion of arguments, the Industrial Tribunal passed its award dated 04.07.2022 (pronounced on 14.07.2022) dismissing all three complaint.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:18732

-5- MP-2843-2023

15. The learned Tribunal observed that the suspension and disciplinary action against the employees were done after following due procedure as charge sheets was issued and domestic enquiries were also conducted and that no violation of Section 33(2) (b) or 33(3) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 has been established.

16. The learned Tribunal observed that evidence shows that suspended workers failed to mark attendance as per standing orders and thus the denial of allowance cannot be termed illegal.

17. The learned Tribunal on the issue of wage deduction observed that the deductions linked to production shortfall do not constitute a change in service conditions under Section 33 of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Blue Star Employees Union vs. State through officer Principal Secretary reported in AIR 2000 SC 3110 and the judgment of High Court of Patna in National Coal Co. Ltd. vs. L.P. Dave reported in AIR 1956 Patna

18. The Learned Tribunal observed that the complaint filed by the general secretary lacks authorization from individual aggrieved workers and thus such complaint is not maintainable without proper authorization as held by the High Court of Assam in Management of National Power Supply Corp. Ltd. vs. State of Assam reported in AIR 1963 Assam 19.

19. Aggrieved by this order the petitioner has filed the present petitions contending that the impugned award suffers from legal errors and failure to appreciate the settled legal position on representative complaints under Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and seeking quashment of the impugned orders.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:18732

-6- MP-2843-2023 perused the record.

20. The grievance of the petitioner before the Tribunal was that the deductions have been made from the salary of the workers during pendency of the reference before the Tribunal which amounts to a contravention of the provisions of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The case of the respondent is that, this is not a reduction in wages nor the mode of payment has been changed, but it is by way of punishment which is permissible and does not come within the purview of Section 33 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.

21. The learned Tribunal has placed reliance on a judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Blue Star Employees Union vs. State through officer Principal Secretary reported in AIR 2000 SC 3110, in which the Apex Court has held that the employer's action falls within one of the prohibitions contained in Section 33 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 if the dispute pending adjudication has connection with an alteration in condition of service of a workmen. In the present case, the Union submitted a charter of demands which is pending by way of reference, whereas the punitive action was taken by the employer in respect of the slow production from March 2016-17 which has no connection with the charter of demands by way of reference pending before the Tribunal.

22. In view of the above, we do not find any error in the impugned order. Hence, all the present Misc. Petitions are dismissed.

23. Let a photocopy of this order be kept in the record of connected Misc. Petition Nos.2076/2024 & 2077/2024.

                               (VIVEK RUSIA)                             (BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
                                  JUDGE                                          JUDGE
                           Divyansh