LAWS(BOM)-2012-12-166

MUKAND STAFF & OFFICERS Vs. MUKAND LTD

Decided On December 20, 2012
Mukand Staff And Officers Appellant
V/S
Mukand Ltd Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the above petition, the petitioner-Association impugns an Award of the Industrial Tribunal, Mumbai, dated 30th June, 2006 passed in Reference (IT) No. 3 of 1993 in respect of Charter of Demands dated 4th November, 1991 pertaining to wages and service conditions of the monthly rated staff of the factory of respondent-Company at Kalwe and its other concerned branch offices. By the impugned Award, the Tribunal accepted the individual settlements entered into by majority of the employees barring 15, and noted that the said employees are enjoying the benefits since September, 2004 onwards and held that the said settlements were binding upon the parties. In respect of the 15 employees who had not signed the settlements, the Tribunal applied the same pattern of pay packets and allowances as those from the category of workmen who were having similar grades and duties. The operative part of the impugned Award reads as follows:

(2.) Being aggrieved by the Award of the Industrial Tribunal the Company filed Writ Petition No. 1705 of 1998 before this Court. On 5.10.1998, a learned Single Judge issued Rule and granted a stay subject to the condition that the Company pays to the monthly rated staff 50% of the increased salary and allowances awarded by the Tribunal in addition to the existing salary and allowances with effect from the date of the publication of the Award and directed that in case it is held ultimately that the said staff were not entitled to the payment so made, the amount would be adjusted by the Company against future wages. On 1.12.1999, the writ petition was heard finally and the learned Single Judge passed an order modifying the Award. The learned Single Judge held that there was community of interest between the workmen and non-workmen and as they worked and functioned in the same grades and the Company had concluded settlements covering both categories of employees in the past, the workmen could espouse the cause of non-workmen. The learned Single Judge disallowed one component of D.A., viz., basic linked variable DA. The learned Single Judge confirmed all other increases in the emoluments granted by the Tribunal. A Review Petition filed by the Association against the said order was rejected on 15.2.2000.

(3.) Both, the Association as well as the Company, preferred Appeals challenging the order of the learned Single Judge. On 26.4.2001, a Division Bench of this Court partially modified the order of the learned Single Judge by (i) reducing one of 3 components of DA granted by the Tribunal viz. the DA fixed terms of percentage of basic pay, grade- wise (ii) reducing the number of services increments (iii) reducing the gratuity from 21 days to 15 days, and (iv) changing the effective date for increase in emoluments from 17.2.1993 to 1.1.1996. The Division Bench affirmed the decision of the learned Single Judge on all other points. Both the parties challenged the judgment of the Division Blench before the Supreme Court. On 20.8.2001, the Supreme Court granted leave and refused to stay the order of the Division Bench. On 19.10.2001 the Supreme Court by an interim order directed the Company not to make any recovery from the employees from the amounts already paid on the basis of the interim awards/orders.