Supreme Court of India

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1497 OF 2011 Judgment Date: Dec 10, 2014

                                                         NON REPORTABLE

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                        CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1497 OF 2011

M/S PEE VEE TEXTILES LTD.    .........APPELLANT

                                     Vs.

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.     .........RESPONDENTS

                               J U D G M E N T

V.GOPALA GOWDA, J.

This appeal is directed  against  the  impugned  judgment  and  order  dated
20.01.2010 passed by the High Court of Judicature at  Bombay,  Nagpur  Bench
in Writ Petition No. 2069 of 2009, for setting aside the impugned order  and
quashing the  order  of  reference  dated  18.2.2009  passed  by  the  State
Government  of  Maharashtra  -  respondent  No.1  herein,  raising   certain
questions of law and urging grounds in support of the same.
The factual matrix and the rival legal contentions urged on  behalf  of  the
parties are briefly stated hereunder with a view to  find  out  whether  the
impugned judgment and order warrants interference  by  this  Court  in  this
appeal.
The appellant is the employer and respondent nos. 4  to  8  herein  are  the
representatives of its workmen. The workmen  raised  an  industrial  dispute
under the provisions of the  Bombay  Industrial  Relations  Act,  1946  (for
short "the B.I.R. Act") read with the  relevant  provisions  of  the  Bombay
Industrial Relations Rules, 1947 (for short "the B.I.R. Rules") in  relation
to the service conditions of the workmen for payment  of  variable  dearness
allowance (VDA) to be given to all categories of workmen, in the  industrial
establishment of the appellant with an increased rate from time to  time  as
per the Government notification  dated  1.4.1993.  The  third  respondent  -
Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Nagpur, the Conciliation  Officer,  before
whom the workmen raised an industrial  dispute  in  relation  to  the  above
service conditions of the workmen, has issued  a  notice  to  the  appellant
either to settle the matter or he will refer the industrial  dispute  to  an
appropriate Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court for adjudication  of  the  same
in  accordance  with  law.  The  appellant  filed  objection  statement   on
14.4.2008 before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, inter  alia,  stating
that no  industrial  dispute  was  existing  between  the  workmen  and  the
employer with regard to the claim of variable dearness allowance as per  the
Government notification  dated 1.4.1993, as the appellant employer  and  the
elected representatives of the workmen who were elected as  per  Section  28
of the B.I.R. Act, have signed the settlements with regard to  the  variable
dearness allowance as per  the  settlements  dated  06.05.1993,  12.06.1996,
29.04.1998, 07.02.2000, 09.05.2003 and lastly on 16.04.2006,  which  was  in
force for a period of 3 years i.e. upto  31.03.2009.  Since  the  industrial
dispute could not  be  settled  between  the  parties  in  the  conciliation
proceedings and  in  the  light  of  the  legal  objections  raised  by  the
appellant, the  Assistant  Commissioner  of  Labour  forwarded  the  failure
report to the Commissioner of Labour - the second respondent  herein,  under
Section 64 of the B.I.R  Act.  The  Commissioner  of  Labour  published  the
failure report and forwarded the same with his recommendation to  the  State
Government to make an order of reference of the industrial  dispute  to  the
Industrial  Tribunal  having  the  jurisdiction  for  adjudication  as   the
objection raised by the appellant does not  have  any  legal  standing.  The
State  Government,  after  examining  the  matter,  referred  the  same  for
adjudication to the  Industrial  Tribunal,  Nagpur,  as  per  the  point  of
dispute in exercise of its powers  conferred  under  Section  73(2)  of  the
B.I.R. Act vide its order dated  18.02.2009.  Aggrieved  by  the  same,  the
appellant filed a writ  petition  before  the  High  Court  which  was  also
dismissed by passing the impugned judgment. Hence this appeal.
Mr. V.A.Mohta, the learned senior counsel appearing for  the  appellant  has
contended that raising of the industrial dispute by the workmen and  getting
an order of reference  made  by  the  State  Government  to  the  Industrial
Tribunal for  adjudication  of  the  dispute  between  the  parties  is  not
maintainable in law as the last settlement  dated  16.04.2006  entered  into
between the  appellant  and  the  representatives  of  the  workmen  was  in
operation for a period upto 31.3.2009 as per the provisions  of  the  B.I.R.
Act and covered the variable dearness  allowance  in  the  said  settlement.
Therefore, it is contended by him that the workmen  could  not  have  raised
the industrial dispute in this regard and  the  same  could  not  have  been
referred to  the  Industrial  Tribunal  by  the  State  Government  for  its
adjudication in exercise of the power conferred upon  the  State  Government
under Section 73 (1) & (2) of the B.I.R. Act. Further,  it  has  been  urged
that accepting the failure report received from the third respondent by  the
second respondent without considering the statement of objections  filed  by
the appellant-employer, is in contravention to Sections 54,  57  and  64  of
the B.I.R. Act. As the order of reference made by the  State  Government  to
the Industrial Tribunal, Nagpur was without jurisdiction;  the  same  should
have been quashed by  the  High  Court  in  exercise  of  its  extraordinary
jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. It  is
also contended by the learned senior counsel for the appellant that  without
giving a proper hearing to the appellant-employer, the  order  of  reference
made  by  the  State  Government  to  the  Industrial  Tribunal  is  not  in
accordance with Chapter X of the B.I.R.  Act  and  therefore,  the  same  is
liable to be quashed.


Further, it is contended that the industrial dispute raised by the  workmen-
respondent as per the Charter of demands in form "L" under Section 42(2)  of
the B.I.R Act, is covered by the provision of Section 64 (a)(III) of  B.I.R.
Act, as the registered settlement  between  the  parties  includes  variable
dearness allowance  along  with  the  clause  in  the  settlement  that  the
representatives of the workmen shall not  place  any  other  demand  on  the
appellant during the "agreement period" which will entail  financial  burden
upon it. This factual aspect of the  case  was  neither  considered  by  the
Conciliation Officer nor the State Government  at  the  time  of  making  an
order of reference to the Industrial Tribunal nor by the  High  Court  while
examining the correctness of the order  of  reference.  In  support  of  the
above contentions, reliance has been placed by him upon  the  provisions  of
Section 64 clause (a) (III) of the B.I.R. Act, which reads thus :-

"64(a)(iii)- by reason of  a  direction  issued  under  sub-Section  (2)  of
Section 114 (or  by  reason  of  any  other  provisions  of  this  Act)  the
employers and employees concerned are in respect of the dispute bound  by  a
registered agreement, settlement,     submission or award."

Further, it is contended by the learned  senior  counsel,  placing  reliance
upon Section 114(2) of the B.I.R. Act, which  provision  enables  the  State
Government to give a direction to the representatives  of  the  workmen  and
the appellant after  affording  an  opportunity  to  them  and  publish  the
notification in the Official Gazette that the  settlement  dated  16.04.2006
is binding between parties under the  above  said  provisions  of  the  Act,
which is not done by it. It is further contended that the above  settlement,
which is in force, is  entered  into  by  the  appellant-employer  with  the
elected representatives of the workmen, as per  Section  28  of  the  B.I.R.
Act. Therefore, the State Government, before exercising its statutory  power
to make an order of reference to the Industrial Tribunal, should  have  seen
that the commencement of  the  conciliation  proceedings  conducted  by  the
Conciliation Officer, under Section 55 of the B.I.R.  Act  is  erroneous  in
law as he has not considered the material objections filed by the  appellant
at the time of  submitting  the  failure  report  to  the  State  Government
through the second respondent.
On the other hand, Mr. Shivaji M. Jadhav, the learned counsel on  behalf  of
the workmen- respondent nos. 4 to 8 herein, has contended that  the  workmen
are justified in raising the industrial dispute in relation to  the  service
condition of the variable dearness allowance fixed by the  State  Government
vide its notification referred to supra, issued under the provisions of  the
Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and therefore the order of  reference  made  by  the
State Government to the Industrial Tribunal is legally  correct  as  it  has
subjectively satisfied itself at  the  time  of  exercising  its  power  and
further it was of the  view  that  the  industrial  dispute  raised  by  the
concerned workmen by submitting the Charter  of  demands  submitted  to  the
appellant and the  Conciliation  Officer  is  legally  justifiable.  It  has
rightly exercised its power to make an order of reference  to  the  Tribunal
after following the procedure contemplated under Section 64  of  the  B.I.R.
Act, on the dispute raised by the workmen. It is further contended that  the
Conciliation  Officer  after  holding  the  conciliation   proceedings   has
submitted the failure report to the second respondent  under  Section  58(2)
of the B.I.R. Act, as the employer was not willing  to  settle  the  dispute
raised by the concerned workmen. Therefore, it was the statutory  duty  cast
upon the Conciliation Officer to  send  the  failure  report  to  the  Chief
Conciliation Officer for further action in  the  matter  after  ascertaining
the facts and circumstances in relation to the dispute and  for  the  reason
that in his opinion, the settlement could not  be  arrived  at  between  the
parties.  Therefore,  the  State  Government  has  rightly   exercised   its
statutory power under the provision of Section 73(2) of the  B.I.R.  Act  to
make an order of reference to  the  Tribunal,  which  provision  is  a  non-
obstante clause. The power conferred upon it under  the  provisions  of  the
Act, provides that it may, at any time  refer  the  industrial  dispute  for
adjudication to the Industrial Court/Tribunal, if on  the  report  submitted
by  the  Conciliation  Officer  or  otherwise,  it  is  satisfied  that  the
industrial dispute is not likely to be settled between the  parties  by  any
other means. He has submitted his failure report along  with  the  objection
letter which was filed by  the  appellant.  The  Chief  Labour  Commissioner
forwarded the same to the  State  Government  stating  that  the  industrial
dispute raised by the concerned workmen with regard  to  the  claim  of  the
variable  dearness  allowance   fixed  by  the  State  Government  vide  its
notification referred to supra, is neither  covered  under  the  settlements
referred to supra upon which reliance is placed by the appellant  nor  there
is any legal impediment for the  State  Government  to  exercise  its  power
under Section 73 (1) & (2) of the B.I.R. Act, to make an order of  reference
to the Industrial Tribunal for its adjudication.  Therefore,  the  order  of
reference made by the Government is legal and valid.
The High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction  and  after  considering  the
relevant aspects of the case has come to the conclusion  that  the  exercise
of power by the State Government under Section 73 (1) & (2)  of  the  B.I.R.
Act is legal and valid. It has further held that the dispute raised  by  the
respondent-workmen is an industrial dispute and the dispute was not  settled
by the employer on account of the stand taken by it before the  Conciliation
Officer. The exercise of power by the State Government cannot be  interfered
with as it has rightly concluded  after  subjective  satisfaction  that  the
dispute raised by the workmen requires to be adjudicated by  the  Industrial
Tribunal in accordance with law as it has got merit to  be  considered.  The
learned standing counsel on behalf of the State Government has  adopted  the
submissions made on behalf of the workmen in justification of the  order  of
reference and the impugned judgment.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it is  necessary  for  us
to examine the rival legal contentions urged on behalf of the  parties  with
a view to find out as to whether the appellant-employer is entitled for  the
relief as sought by it.
After careful examination of the legal pleas  urged  in  this  civil  appeal
with reference to the relevant provisions of Sections 54,  57,  58,  64  and
73(2) of the B.I.R. Act, we are of the view that the challenge to the  order
of reference made by the State Government to the Industrial Tribunal  cannot
be interfered with on the plea of the appellant that the dispute  raised  by
the workmen is not  an  industrial  dispute  as  it  is  covered  under  the
settlements and particularly, the settlement of 2006,  is  wholly  untenable
in both facts and in law and therefore the same is liable to be rejected.
The settlement referred to supra for the  period  from  2006  to  2009  upon
which strong reliance has been placed by the appellant  contending  that  it
is binding upon the parties as it is in force, has been considered by us  in
this appeal. We have to answer the same in the negative for the reason  that
the industrial dispute which was  raised  by  the  workmen  is  not  covered
either under the said settlement  or  in  the  earlier  settlements  as  the
demand of the workmen is based on State  Government  notification  of  1993,
which has fixed the dearness  allowance  under  the  provisions  of  Minimum
Wages Act, 1948, which is also one of the service conditions of workmen  and
the same is not included in the settlements. Therefore, the  dispute  raised
by the workmen is an industrial  dispute  in  terms  of  the  definition  of
Section 3(17) of  the  B.I.R.  Act.  The  legal  contention  raised  by  the
appellant regarding the maintainability of the Charter of demands  submitted
by the concerned workmen in the said dispute to  the  appellant  during  the
existence of the settlement is wholly untenable in law in  view  of  Section
73 (1) & (2) of the B.I.R. Act, which reads thus :-
"73. State Government may refer industrial dispute to industrial  court  for
arbitration.-

Notwithstanding anything contained in this act, the  State  Government  may,
at any  time,  refer  an  Industrial  dispute  to  the  arbitration  of  the
Industrial court, if on a report made by the Labour Officer or otherwise  it
satisfied that -

(1) by reason of the continuance of the dispute -

(a) a serious outbreak of disorder or  a  breach  of  the  public  peace  is
likely to occur; or

(b) serious or prolonged hardship to a large section  of  the  community  is
likely to be caused; or

(c) the industry concerned  is  likely  to  be  seriously  affected  or  the
prospects and scope for employment therein curtailed; or

(2) the dispute is not likely to be settled by other means; or

(3) it is necessary in the public interest to do so."

13. The statutory power conferred upon the State  Government  under  Section
73 (1) & (2) of the B.I.R. Act is wider, as it is  the  non-obstante  clause
power,  the  provision  of  which  states  that   notwithstanding   anything
contained in the Act, which is referable to the other provisions of the  Act
including the settlements arrived at under  the  provisions  of  the  B.I.R.
Act, the State Government  may  refer  an  existing  industrial  dispute  to
either the Industrial Tribunal or Labour  Court  for  adjudication,  on  the
failure report submitted by the Chief  Labour  Commissioner.  The  Assistant
Labour Commissioner  has  rightly  conducted  the  conciliation  proceedings
under Section 55 of the B.I.R. Act on the Charter of demands of the  workmen
in view of the fact that Section 55 of the  B.I.R.  Act,  provides  for  the
commencement of the conciliation proceedings on receipt of  statement  of  a
case under Section 54 of the B.I.R. Act. The date  of  commencement  of  the
proceedings shall  be  communicated  by  the  Conciliation  Officer  to  the
parties concerned. Section 64(a)(iii) of the B.I.R Act,  provides  that  the
conciliation proceedings ought not to be commenced/ conducted in respect  of
industrial dispute in view of Section 114  (2)  of  the  B.I.R.  Act  or  by
reason of any other provisions of the B.I.R. Act. Much  emphasis  is  placed
upon the above provision of the Act by the learned senior counsel on  behalf
of the appellant in relation to  the  dispute  governed  by  the  registered
settlements between the parties. However, the  said  provision  of  the  Act
will also be subject to Section 73(2) of the B.I.R. Act. On the  Charter  of
demands  raised  by  the  workmen  representatives,  the  Assistant   Labour
Commissioner  has  rightly  commenced  the   conciliation   proceedings   by
following the procedure contemplated  under  the  above  provisions  of  the
B.I.R. Act and the B.I.R. Rules as it mandates  him  to  do  so,  since  the
dispute raised by the workmen with  regard  to  VDA  could  not  be  settled
between the parties as the appellant-employer has taken the stand  that  the
industrial dispute raised by the workmen does not exist  as  it  is  covered
under the settlements between the parties which  is  in  force  and  binding
upon  them.  Objection  statement  is  filed  by  them  before  the   Labour
Commissioner against the failure report by placing strong reliance upon  the
settlements. The same is considered by  the  State  Government  and  it  has
opined that the dispute raised by the  workmen  is  an  existing  industrial
dispute in terms of Section 3 (17) of the B.I.R. Act and  the  same  is  not
settled between the parties. Therefore, the  State  Government  has  rightly
exercised its statutory power conferred under Section 73 (1) &  (2)  of  the
B.I.R. Act, to make an order of reference to  the  Industrial  Tribunal  for
its adjudication as per the points of dispute referred to it. Even  assuming
for the sake of the argument that the demand of variable dearness  allowance
is covered under the settlement of 2006, non  termination  of  the  same  by
either of the parties does not affect the right of the workmen to raise  the
industrial dispute in relation to the variable dearness allowance  fixed  by
the State Government in its notification. Therefore, the  contention  raised
on behalf of the appellant  that  the  Charter  of  demands  raised  by  the
workmen in relation to the payment of variable  dearness  allowance  as  per
the notification is illegal and   therefore,  the  conciliation  proceedings
should not have been held by the Conciliation Officer  as  the  same  is  in
violation of Section 64 (a)(iii) of the B.I.R. Act and exercise of power  by
the State Government under Section 73 (1) & (2) of the B.I.R. Act is bad  in
law, cannot be accepted by this Court, as the said  contentions  are  wholly
untenable in law. Hence, the same are liable to be rejected.
Apart from the power of the State Government to make an order  of  reference
in relation to the industrial dispute raised by the workmen,  we  have  seen
the  settlement  dated  16.04.2006,  in  relation  to  the  senior  workers'
increment in the pay scale, which increased to Rs.15 per day in  back  wages
and the junior workers' pay scale increased to Rs.19 per day in back  wages.
Therefore, there is no VDA fixed so far as these workmen are  concerned.  As
per clause (2) of the settlement, that has fixed the VDA  only  in  relation
to the learners in the Weaving Section. Hence, the said settlement does  not
take away the right of  the  workmen  to  raise  an  industrial  dispute  in
relation to the VDA. Therefore, the workmen are justified in submitting  the
Charter of demands in relation to VDA as  per  the  Government  notification
w.e.f. 1.4.1993. The absence of the VDA clause is specifically mentioned  in
the Charter of demands submitted  by  the  respondent  workmen.  Hence,  the
contention by the learned senior counsel that what is raised by the  workmen
and referred to the Industrial Tribunal is  not  an  industrial  dispute  is
devoid  of  merit,  both  on  facts  and  in  law  and  does   not   warrant
consideration by this Court.

 In our considered view, the High Court,  no  doubt,  has  referred  to  and
considered all these aspects and has rightly held  that  the  appellant  has
not disputed the fact that the workmen raised the dispute and the  same  was
not acceded by the appellant. Therefore, the conciliation proceedings  under
Section 55 of the B.I.R. Act were held to be valid.  The  grievance  of  the
appellant that the industrial dispute raised by the workmen is  not  tenable
has been rightly rejected by the High Court  after  recording  the  findings
and reasons holding that the industrial dispute between the  parties  exists
and the exercise of its power in relation to making an  order  of  reference
is a subjective satisfaction of the State Government.  Therefore,  the  view
taken by the High Court that the plea taken by  the  employer  in  the  writ
petition proceedings cannot be the subject matter for  its  judicial  review
is the correct approach for the reason that  the  State  Government  on  the
basis of materials on record has arrived at the right conclusion and  opined
that there exists an industrial dispute for the claim  of  VDA  between  the
parties and the same has been referred to the Industrial Tribunal,  for  its
adjudication as the conciliation proceedings have failed as  the  appellant-
employer has not acceded to the demands of the workmen and  entered  into  a
settlement with the representatives of  the  workmen.  Therefore,  the  High
Court has rightly held that there is no ground  for  interference  with  the
order of reference made by the State Government to the Industrial  Tribunal.
The writ petition is rightly dismissed by the  High  Court  which  does  not
call  for  interference  by  this  Court  in  exercise  to   its   appellate
jurisdiction.
The employer has been incessantly challenging the order  of  reference  made
with regard to the  variable  dearness  allowance  as  fixed  by  the  State
Government in its  notification  w.e.f.  1.4.1993.  The  workmen  have  been
denied the legitimate monetary benefits for which they are legally  entitled
to and the same is denied to them for the last 21 years by taking  untenable
pleas and by not acceding to the Charter of demands made by the  workmen  by
placing reliance upon the  settlements  which  are  not  applicable  to  the
demands raised by the workmen as the same  is  contrary  to  the  Government
notifications. Further, the appellant has been questioning the power of  the
State Government under Section 73 (1) & (2) of the B.I.R. Act,  to  make  an
order  of  reference  to  the  Industrial  Tribunal  by   taking   untenable
contention under Section 64 (a)(iii) of the B.I.R. Act. The  said  provision
of the Act is subject to exercise of power by  the  State  Government  under
Section 73 (1) & (2) of the B.I.R. Act, which has rightly been done  by  the
State Government in  the  instant  case.  The  appellant-employer  has  been
litigating  the  matter  since  2009,  thereby  stalling  the   adjudication
proceedings, which warrants imposition of exemplary costs to be paid to  the
workmen by the appellant for the reasons  stated  supra.  The  workmen  will
also be entitled to get interest at the bank rate on the  monetary  benefits
of VDA that may be determined by the Industrial Tribunal  on  the  order  of
reference, if decided in their favour.
For the aforesaid reasons, we pass the following order:-
I.The civil appeal is  dismissed  with  exemplary  cost  of  Rs.  1,00,000/-
payable to the workmen within 4 weeks from the date of receipt  of  copy  of
this order.


II.We direct the Industrial Tribunal to adjudicate the dispute  in  relation
to the variable dearness allowance fixed in the notification dated  1.4.1993
and subsequent notifications issued by the  State  Government  and  pass  an
award within six months from the date of receipt of the copy of this  order.
If, the order of reference made to the Industrial Tribunal  is  answered  in
favour of the workmen, the Tribunal is directed  to  award  an  interest  in
favour of the workmen on the monetary benefits of VDA on the basis of  fixed
deposit rate by any one of the nationalized banks.


     .....................................................................J.

                                    [V. GOPALA GOWDA]


  .....................................................................J.
                                   [C. NAGAPPAN]

 New Delhi,
 December 10, 2014