HIMACHAL TERPENE PRODUCTS PVT LTD Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT
LAWS(HPH)-1997-12-4
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Decided on December 24,1997

HIMACHAL TERPENE PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. Appellant
VERSUS
PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT Respondents




JUDGEMENT

- (1.)THE petitioner, a private limited company engaged in the manufacture of terpene chemicals at Kala Amb, Nahan in District Sirmaur of Himachal Pradesh, has filed this writ petition challenging the legality of the award passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla in Ref. Case No. 158/1990 dated July 3, 1992.
(2.)THERE are 44 workmen of different categories skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled employed by the petitioner company which was established in the year 1972. In the year 1985, a demand was made by the workers for revision of pay scales and after discussion between the representatives of the workers and the Management, a settlement was arrived at on May 20, 1986. The memorandum of settlement inter alia, specifies the monthly wages in respect of employees of different grades A, B and C. and the benefits the workmen are entitled to Paragraph 9 of the memorandum says that the settlement will remain in force for a period of four years w. e. f. November 1, 1985. The workers agreed by paragraph 7, that during the tenure of the settlement they shall not raise any demand. By October 31, 1989 the settlement came to an end. On January 25, 1990 a charter of demands was placed by the workers before the Management seeking revision of pay scales and certain other benefits. The conciliation proceedings were taken up but as the same ended in failure, a reference under Section 12 (5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (For short the Act) was made to the Labour Court by the State Government and the same is in the following terms:
"whether the demands raised by the Himachal Terpene Products Workers' Union, Kala Amb, vide demand charter dated January 25, 1990 are justified and in order? If yes, what relief and amount of compensation, the workmen are entitled to ?"

(3.)THE petitioner company pleaded before the Labour Court that the Union is bound by the settlement dated November 1, 1985 and without complying with the mandatory requirement of two months' notice period as contemplated under Section 19 (2) of the Act, no fresh demand could be raised. The company was incurring losses and, therefore, its financial position could not justify the revision of pay scales demanded by the workers union.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.