Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 853 (KER)

Tata Tea Limited v. General Secretary

2009-09-09

S.SIRI JAGAN

body2009
JUDGMENT : S. Siri Jagan, J. The management in I.D. No. 18/1997 before the Industrial Tribunal, Idukki, is the petitioner herein, which is a tea estate. They are challenging Exhibit P10 award passed by the Tribunal in that industrial dispute on the ground that the Tribunal has travelled beyond the scope of the issue referred for adjudication and adjudicated an issue which was not even in the contemplation of the unions appearing in this case as revealed from their claim statements and the reference order. According to the petitioner, at the time when the matter was being adjudicated by the Tribunal, the dispute which was referred for adjudication ceased to exist, since the management themselves had reversed the action which gave rise to the dispute and, therefore, there was no dispute pending for adjudication at the time of passing of the award. But the Tribunal framed another issue which was not referred for adjudication, adjudicated the same and decided in favour of the unions on that issue, which according to the petitioner, is not permissible under law, insofar as it is settled law that the Tribunal has to confine himself to the issue referred for adjudication and he cannot travel beyond the scope of the issue referred. 2. One of the unions in the dispute (viz., the 1st respondent herein) opposes the original petition. According to the counsel for the 1st respondent union, although the issue adjudicated by the Tribunal is not exactly the dispute referred for adjudication, the issue decided by the Tribunal is an issue intrinsically connected with the dispute referred for adjudication and, therefore, in order to obviate the necessity of the unions raising another dispute on that connected issue, the Tribunal had rightly adjudicated that dispute, which is an offshoot of the issue referred for adjudication. He would also submit that since substantial justice has been done by the Tribunal, this Court should not exercise the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the award which renders complete justice between the parties. He also points out that if that dispute had been considered by this Court, this Court also would have come to the same conclusion and, therefore, it is not necessary to interfere with the award on a technical question as to whether the issue decided was the issue actually referred for adjudication. 3. He also points out that if that dispute had been considered by this Court, this Court also would have come to the same conclusion and, therefore, it is not necessary to interfere with the award on a technical question as to whether the issue decided was the issue actually referred for adjudication. 3. I have considered the rival contentions, in detail. 4. The issue referred for adjudication is contained in Exhibit P-4 order of reference of the Government of Kerala. The issue referred by Exhibit P-4 is follows: Whether the action of the management of the Tata Tea, Munnar in having altered the earlier existing practice/arrangements in respect of tasks like Line Sweeping, Cattle Keeping, Hot tea preparation and related works is justifiable or not? If not what relief the workers are entitled to. 5. Before the Tribunal, the unions themselves submitted that the issue relating to cattle keeping and hot tea preparation were no longer subsisting disputes and the only subsisting dispute was in respect of line sweeping. As against the said issue, the Tribunal considered the following issue in the award. “Whether the action of the management of Tata Tea Ltd., Munnar in having altered the existing practice/arrangements in respect of tasks like line sweeping cattle keeping, hot tea preparation and related works is justifiable or not? If not, what relief the workers are entitled to?” 6. After adjudicating that issue, the Tribunal came to the finding that by increasing the sweeping task for each sweeper from 30 to 60 units, without issuing a notice as contemplated u/s 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, the management had violated the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and, therefore, the workers who are doing line sweeping are eligible to continue line sweeping without any increase in their task till their conditions of service are duly changed in accordance with law. Obviously the issue adjudicated by the Tribunal is not the issue referred for adjudication by the Government. The issue referred for adjudication was with respect to alteration of earlier existing practice/arrangements in respect of the tasks like line sweeping. This arose on account of the action of the management in deciding to outsource the task of line sweeping by entrusting the said work on contract to an independent contractor chosen by the management. Three unions had filed claim statements, which are produced as Exhibits P-5, P-6 and P-7. This arose on account of the action of the management in deciding to outsource the task of line sweeping by entrusting the said work on contract to an independent contractor chosen by the management. Three unions had filed claim statements, which are produced as Exhibits P-5, P-6 and P-7. In none of the three claim statements was there even any reference to any dispute regarding the increase of task from 30 units to 60 units. In fact the only dispute raised in the claim statements was regarding giving of sweeping work on contract excluding the regular sweepers of the management from the said work. It is an admitted fact that at least prior to the passing of the award, the said practice was discontinued by the management and regular sweepers of the management were continued to be engaged for sweeping work also. But it is true that while doing so, the task to each worker was increased from 30 to 60 units. But except in the evidence before the Tribunal, at no time the unions had raised any dispute regarding the same, not even in the claim statements. It is settled law that the Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals cannot travel beyond the scope of the issue referred for adjudication. Here the issue adjudicated by the Tribunal had no direct relation to the issue referred for adjudication. The question as to the justifiability of the increase of the task of sweepers from 30 to 60 units was not an issue for adjudication at all. In the claim statements the unions had not objected to such increase. That being so, I have no doubt in my mind that the Tribunal could not have adjudicated that issue which was not in contemplation of any of the unions while filing their claim statements. In view of the above findings, Exhibit P10 cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the same is quashed. Insofar as the issue referred for adjudication ceased to exist even prior to the passing of the award and there was no subsisting dispute on the same, I do not think that in respect of that issue the unions are entitled to any relief. It is held so. Accordingly, Exhibit P-10 is quashed and the original petition is allowed.