- (1.) Hindustan Steel Works Construction limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'employer') calls' in question legality of the judgment rendered by Division Bench'of the andhra Pradesh High Court affirming the order passed by the learned single Judge holding that withdrawal of construction allowance which was being earlier allowed to the employees working at the vishakhapatnam was in violation of Section 9a of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the 'act'). According to the employees as urged in the writ petition it was done without following the mandatory provisions of Section 9a and was in violation of principles of natural justice.
(2.) Factual aspects need to be noted in brief are as follows: employer started construction work of vizag Steel Plant in 1979 and employees stationed there were paid Project/construction allowance. The employer discontinued payment of construction allowance and had paid City Compensatory allowance. The withdrawal continued w. e. f. 7.4.1992. On 22.8.1974 a circular was issued by the employer notifying revision of pay scales w. e. f. 1.1. 1974. On 17.1.1975 the Ministry of Finance, Government of India issued office Memorandum with regard to construction projects and grant of project allowance. It was indicated therein that the allowance was intended primarily to compensate the staff for lack of amenities such as housing, schools, markets, dispensaries etc. Since November 1979 the employees were paid project/construction allowance. In 1986 a High Power Committee was appointed by this Court to go into the questions relating to the implementation of the recommendations of the Fourth pay Commission. The final report was submitted on 2.11.1988. The issue relating to project/construction allowance was set out in Chapter 12 of the report. By order dated 3.5.1990 this Court directed implementation of the. recommendations of the High power Committee. According to the appellants there was no restriction on withdrawal of the allowance under the changed circumstances. The allowance was specific and particular in the sense that it was payable under certain circumstances.
(3.) Questioning legality of the withdrawal writ petition was filed before the Andhra Pradesh high Court, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge. The primary challenge was that there was clear violation of the mandatory requirements of Section 9a and, therefore, order was not sustainable. The employer questioned maintainability of the writ petition contending that efficacious alternative and statutory remedy is available under the Act and writ petition was not maintainable, particularly, when factual controversy is involved. The question whether there was violation of the requirements of section 9a is essentially one of facts.;