Telangana High Court
The Management Of A C C Limited, vs Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour ... on 14 October, 2024
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
1
wp_13668_2014
NBK, J
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No.13668 of 2014
ORDER:
The Management of Associated Cement Companies Limited (ACC
Cements, for short) is the petitioner herein. The petitioner challenges the
Award dated 27.01.2014 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court-cum-VI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Godavarikhani, in ID
No.58 of 2006.
2. Heard Ms. G. Sudha, learned counsel for the petitioner; and learned
Government Pleader for Labour appearing for respondent No.1.
3. The sum and substance of the writ affidavit is that ACC Cements is
a company engaged in manufacture and sale of cement, and the company
established two units; one at Tadepalli, and the other at Mancherial. The
Tadepalli Unit was closed and sold to third parties. The Mancherial Unit
was also later closed and sold to Mancherial Cement Company in the year
2005. The wages of the employees of the petitioner company who were
working at Mancherial Unit by the date of sale were governed by Cement
Wage Board and the petitioner paid all the wages and terminal benefits to
all its employees. While so, the 2nd respondent-ACC Mazdoor Union
submitted a Charter of demands on 02.05.2005 and raised an Industrial
Dispute. The State Government referred the dispute to the 1st respondent
Tribunal, whereupon the Tribunal passed the impugned Award.
wp_13668_2014
NBK, J
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the dispute
essentially is with regard to revision of wages of workmen of ACC Cements
with effect from 01.04.2005. It is contended that the petitioner paid all the
wages and terminal benefits and there were fair chances of success of
petitioner's case, however, the petitioner was not given opportunity to lead
evidence. It is further contended that the petitioner-company is Cement
manufacturing company, which is a controlled industry governed under
the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, and therefore the
1st respondent has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter and therefore
the impugned Award is illegal and liable to be set aside. Learned counsel
relies on the judgment in M/s Birla Corporation Ltd., v. Presiding
Officer, Industrial Tribunal-I, U.P 1.
5. This Court by Docket Order dated 08.05.2014 granted interim stay
of the Award for the prima facie reason that the Central Government
Industrial Tribunal is constituted to deal with the industrial disputes in
respect of petitioner company being a cement manufacturer.
6. Having considered the submissions made and perusing the record, it
is pertinent to note that the petitioner company is a cement manufacturing
company and is a controlled industry within the meaning of Section 2 of
the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951. Therefore, the
Writ - C - 66284 of 2010 (Allahabad High Court)
wp_13668_2014
NBK, J
appropriate Government in relation to a controlled industry by virtue of
Section 2(a)(i) of the Central Act, once notified as controlled industry under
Section 2 of the Act of 1951 would be the Central Government and as such
the State Government could not refer the industrial dispute for
adjudication under the State Act. In that view of the matter, the impugned
Award is liable to be set aside.
7. Accordingly, the impugned Award is set aside, and the writ petition
is allowed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand
closed.
_____________________________
Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka
14th October, 2024
ksm
