Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 2603 (MAD)

R. Selvam v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court

2024-11-15

M.JOTHIRAMAN, M.S.RAMESH

body2024
JUDGMENT : M.S.RAMESH, J. Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, praying to allow the writ appeal and set aside the order dated 26.07.2013 in WP.No.18057 of 2008. For the sake of convenience, the appellants herein are referred to as 'workmen', the first respondent as 'Labour Court' and the second respondent as 'the Mill'. 2. All the seven appellants herein are members of INTUC Trade Union and workmen of the Mill. From 14.09.1994 onwards, the workmen of the Mill resorted to strike and during the continuation of strike, there were several rounds of conciliation talks between the parties and ultimately, on 02.01.1995, the Trade Union and the Mill entered into a Settlement under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called as 'the Act') for the period between 01.01.1995 to 13.12.1999. Among several clauses in the agreement, the Mill had agreed that the Variable Dearness Allowance (VDA) for more than 5000 points would be calculated @ 30 paise per point and merge with the basic pay, apart from the House Rent Allowance (HRA) and Medical Allowance (MA). It was also agreed therein that after the expiry of Section 12(3) Settlement, the same would continue to be binding on both the parties, until another Settlement is entered into. 2.1 During the subsistence of Settlement, the Mill stopped functioning from 18.10.1998 onwards and several rounds of conciliation talks were held between the Trade Unions and the Mill before the Statutory Conciliation Officers. Ultimately, on 12.06.2000, the Conciliation Officer, namely the Deputy Commissioner of Labour (DCL), Salem, had given an advice, which was accepted by all the Trade Unions, including INTUC, whereby, the DCL had called upon the parties to reopen the Mill and resume work by paying the workmen the wages which they received prior to September 1998 for the first 2 years, comprising of the basic wages, VDA, MA, including HRA and from the third year, VDA to be paid in accordance with the variable index points. 2.2 In accordance with the advice of the DCL dated 12.06.2000, the Mill had commenced its work with effect from 12.06.2000 and the workers were paid their wages. 2.2 In accordance with the advice of the DCL dated 12.06.2000, the Mill had commenced its work with effect from 12.06.2000 and the workers were paid their wages. In other words, the workers were paid their last drawn monthly wages, received by them prior to September 1998, on consolidated basis, comprising of their basic salary, VDA, MA and HRA for the first two years and from the third year onwards, they had received VDA according to the variable index points. 2.3 However, after about 5 years, the appellants herein, together with few other workmen belonging to INTUC, filed a Computation Petition under Section 33(C)(2) of the Act in C.P.No.412 of 2005 before the Labour Court, Salem, for computation of their claim for VDA from 16.08.2000 to 28.02.2005. After filing of this Computation Petition, the Trade Unions and the Mill had entered into a Settlement under Section 18(1) of the Act, whereby, it was recorded that the workmen had resumed duties as per the advice of the DCL, by giving them all their monetary claims under the earlier Section 12(3) Settlement dated 02.01.1995 and by considering the terms of the advice as a new agreement. 2.4 However, the applicants, who had filed a Computation Petition before the Labour Court for claiming VDA, continued to pursue the petition and ultimately, by an order dated 28.02.2008, the Labour Court had computed the claim of VDA at Rs.44,021.12, for each of the workmen and thereby, allowed C.P.No.412 of 2005. 2.5 When the Mill had challenged the aforesaid order of the Labour Court dated 28.02.2008 before this Court in W.P.No.18057 of 2008, a learned Single Judge had allowed the Writ Petition through an order dated 26.07.2013 and thereby set aside the order of the Labour Court dated 28.02.2008. This order of the learned Single Judge is assailed in this Intra Court Appeal. 3. From the submissions made on the either side, it is seen that the dispute revolves around the interpretation to the terms of agreement entered into between the Mill and Trade Unions under Section 18(1) of the Act dated 31.10.2005. For easy reference, the terms of the said agreement is extracted hereunder:- 4. 3. From the submissions made on the either side, it is seen that the dispute revolves around the interpretation to the terms of agreement entered into between the Mill and Trade Unions under Section 18(1) of the Act dated 31.10.2005. For easy reference, the terms of the said agreement is extracted hereunder:- 4. Mr.N.G.R. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/ workmen submitted that the original Settlement under Section 12(3) dated 02.01.1995 has not been replaced by another Settlement, insofar as it relates to agreement for payment of VDA to the workmen and since the subsequent Settlement under Section 18(1) does not delve upon disbursement of VDA, the workmen would be entitled to their claim of VDA for the period between 16.08.2000 to 28.02.2005, in accordance with Clause 7(a) of the original Section 12(3) Settlement. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the Mill, on the other hand, submitted that the Mill had resumed its activities, pursuant to the advice of the DCL dated 12.06.2000, which advice was recorded in writing, through subsequent Section 18(1) Settlement dated 31.10.2005. According to him, the Settlement arrived under Section 18(1) had replaced the original Settlement under Section 12(3) and since the appellants herein, who are the members of INTUC, had agreed not to claim monetary benefits under the original Settlement arrived under Section 12(3), but had agreed to receive their monthly wages as per the advice of the DCL dated 12.06.2000, they are not entitled to their claim. He further added that as per the advice of the DCL, the Mill was reopened on 12.06.2000 and all the workmen were paid consolidated monthly wages for the last 24 months and thereafter, they were also paid VDA apart from their basic pay and allowances, as per the variable index points. With such submissions, he prayed for dismissal of the Writ Appeal. 6. According to the learned counsel for the Mill, the dispute that was settled as per Section 18(1) Settlement, was only with regard to payment of bonus and incentives for the year 2004/2005 and their entitlement for VDA was not the subject matter of the subsequent Settlement and hence, they had rightly made their claim by invoking Section 33C(2) of the Act. 7. 7. The short point involved in the present appeal is, as to whether the appellants would be entitled to make a claim of VDA on the ground that the terms of agreement with regard to payment of VDA under Section 12(3) Settlement dated 02.01.1995 has been replaced in the subsequent Section 18(1) Settlement dated 31.10.2005 or not? 8. At the outset, it requires to be mentioned here that the terms recorded in Section 18(1) Settlement dated 31.10.2005, is ambiguous. The terms of Settlement, as extracted herein before, records the following phrases:- a) The advice of the DCL dated 12.06.2000 to reopen the Mill has been accepted by all the Trade Unions; b) The DCL's advice has been accepted by all the workers without any claim for continuity and monetary benefits; c) The workers had resumed duties 'by treating the arrangement as a new agreement'; d) It was agreed that the Mill shall pay bonus @ 8.33% and incentive @ 5.66% to the workmen without any arrears. 9. The expression 'treating the arrangement as a new agreement' referred to in Clause (c) above, has been interpreted by both the counsels in different ways. While the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/workmen submitted that the terms recorded in Section 18(1) Settlement is the new Settlement, which resolves the bonus dispute alone and does not make any reference to the payment of VDA that has been already agreed upon by both parties under Section 12(3) Settlement, the learned counsel appearing for the Mill submitted that the terms of advice of the DCL, that has been implemented by the Mill, has been recorded in Section 18(1) Settlement, which also includes an agreed arrangement for payment of VDA. 10. On a careful reading of Clause 1 of Section 18(1) Settlement, it has been recorded therein that the workers attached to all the Trade Unions had resumed work pursuant to the advice of the DCL dated 12.06.2000 and since the earlier Section 12(3) Settlement dated 02.01.1995 had expired, 'this advice' was agreed to be treated as a 'new agreement', without any claim for continuity of the earlier Section 12(3) Settlement and without any claim for arrears of monetary benefits. 11. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the workmen would, however, refer to Clause 2 of Section 18(1) Settlement and stated that, it has been clearly recorded therein that the dispute was only with regard to payment of bonus for the year 2004/2005, which was resolved in the agreement, whereby, the Trade Unions have agreed to receive bonus and incentives at the given rates therein. He however referred to the phrase 'agreed to treat it as a new agreement' in paragraph 1 of Section 18(1) Settlement and interpreted it to mean the new Section 18(1) Settlement as the new agreement and not the terms of the advice of the DCL. He further added that the terms of the Section 18(1) Settlement relates to the payment of bonus and incentive for the year 2004/2005 only and nothing else. 12. We have already recorded that the meaning we could understand and derive from the terms recorded in Section 18(1) Settlement is that the advice of the DCL dated 12.06.2000 alone has been recorded as a new Settlement. However, in order to clear this ambiguity, we deem it appropriate to look into the practical situation in the Mill, pursuant to the advice of the DCL and the conduct of the parties. 13. As already stated, on the advice of the DCL, Salem, the Mill commenced its activities with effect from 12.06.2000. The incidental advice of the DCL was also that the Mill shall pay consolidated monthly wages, consisting of basic salary+VDA+MA+HRA for 24 months from the date of commencement of the Mill and from the 25th month onwards, the Mill shall pay VDA in accordance with the variable index points. The members of INTUC, including the appellants herein, had joined duty on 16.08.2000. From the date of joining, all the workers including the appellants herein, were paid consolidated monthly wages, which included basic salary+VDA+MA+HRA for 24 months. This fact is not in dispute. None of the workers had raised any claim for VDA, at this relevant point of time, during the first 24 months. From the 25th month of recommencement of the Mill, the Mill started to pay VDA to the workmen in accordance with the variable index points. This enhanced payment of their monthly wages, including VDA, was also received by them and there was no claim for payment for the earlier 24 months. From the 25th month of recommencement of the Mill, the Mill started to pay VDA to the workmen in accordance with the variable index points. This enhanced payment of their monthly wages, including VDA, was also received by them and there was no claim for payment for the earlier 24 months. The workmen thereafter continued to receive the wages in accordance with this agreement, for the next 3 years, without any complaint. It is only in the month of June 2005, 18 workmen belonging to INTUC had filed the petition under Section 33(C)(2) of the Act. It would be relevant to mention here that the INTUC, which was one of the signatories to Section 18(1) Settlement, had not chosen to claim VDA for the first 24 months, commencing from 16.08.2000, but only few of its members had filed the Computation Petition. If there was no agreement or arrangement for disbursement of VDA for the first 24 months from the date of recommencement of the Mill, the Trade Unions or the workmen would have surely raised a dispute from the very first month when they had received the consolidated monthly wages, comprising of basic salary+VDA+MA+HRA or atleast would have raised a dispute in the 25th month or immediately thereafter, with regard to the Mill's alleged denial of VDA, in accordance with the variable index points under a separate head. However, the factual scenario seems to be contrary to this and the workmen had been receiving their monthly wages in accordance with the advice of the DCL dated 12.06.2000, for 5 long years, without any dispute. 14. On an overall appreciation of the conduct of these appellants, who are only 7 among 18 who had filed the Computation Petition, our earlier finding that the terms of advice of the DCL was reduced into writing in Section 18(1) Settlement dated 31.10.2005, stands ratified. We would also add here that there was a dispute with regard to the payment of bonus to the workers for the year 2004/2005, which dispute was also resolved under Section 18(1) Settlement dated 31.10.2005 and was reduced to writing in paragraphs 2 and 3 therein. 15. In the light of the above findings and observations, we do not agree with the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/workmen. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.